From progression to progress: The future of multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant advances have been made in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple sclerosis in recent years yet challenges remain. The current classification of MS phenotypes according to disease activity and progression, for example, does not adequately reflect the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that may be acting in an individual with MS at different time points. Thus, there is a need for clinicians to transition to a management approach based on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that drive disability in MS. A Canadian expert panel convened in January 2023 to discuss priorities for clinical discovery and scientific exploration that would help advance the field. Five key areas of focus included: identifying a mechanism-based disease classification system; developing biomarkers (imaging, fluid, digital) to identify pathologic processes; implementing a data-driven approach to integrate genetic/environmental risk factors, clinical findings, imaging and biomarker data, and patient-reported outcomes to better characterize the many factors associated with disability progression; utilizing precision-based treatment strategies to target different disease processes; and potentially preventing disease through Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) vaccination, counselling about environmental risk factors (e.g. obesity, exercise, vitamin D/sun exposure, smoking) and other measures. Many of the tools needed to meet these needs are currently available. Further work is required to validate emerging biomarkers and tailor treatment strategies to the needs of individual patients. The hope is that a more complete view of the individual's pathobiology will enable clinicians to usher in an era of truly personalized medicine, in which more informed treatment decisions throughout the disease course achieve better long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".