Relationship between Serum Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein and Neurogranin Levels and Cognition in Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory neurodegenerative disorder, and cognitive problems occur in the early and late phases of the disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between serum glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurogranin levels and cognition in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Twenty-three patients and 25 healthy controls were included in the study. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurogranin (NRGN) levels were determined on blood samples from patients and controls. Disease duration and EDSS scores of patients were recorded, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) scale was used for cognitive assessment. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of serum NRGN and GFAP levels. MOCA scores were lower in the patient group than in the healthy control group. No statistically significant correlation was found between NRGN and GFAP serum levels and MOCA scores. Our study showed that there was no statistically significant association between serum NRGN and GFAP levels and cognition in MS patients. This study is the first to examine serum GFAP and NRGN levels in the context of cognition in MS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".