Accuracy of serum neurofilament light to identify contrast-enhancing lesions in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhancing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions (CELs) indicate acute multiple sclerosis inflammation. Serum biomarkers, neurofilament light (sNfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) may increase in the presence of CELs, and indicate a need to perform MRI. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the accuracy of biomarkers to detect CELs. METHODS: = 557, 66% female). Optimal cut-points from Bland-Altman analysis for spot biomarker level and Youden's index for delta-change from remission were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients (21%) had CELs. A spot sNfL measurement >23.0 pg/mL corresponded to 7.0 times higher odds of CEL presence (95% CI: 3.8, 12.8), with 25.9% sensitivity, 95.2% specificity, operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.61; while sNfL delta-change >30.8% from remission corresponded to 5.0 times higher odds (95% CI: 3.2, 7.8), 52.6% sensitivity, 81.9% specificity, AUC 0.67. sGFAP had poor CEL detection. In patients > 50 years, neither cut-point remained significant. sNfL delta-change outperformed spot levels at identifying asymptomatic CELs (AUC 0.67 vs 0.59) and in patients without treatment escalation between samples (AUC 0.67 vs 0.57). CONCLUSION: Spot sNfL >23.0 pg/mL or a 30.8% increase from remission provides modest prediction of CELs in patients <50 years; however, low sNfL does not obviate the need for MRI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".