Individual Prognostication of Disease Activity and Disability Worsening in Multiple Sclerosis With Retinal Layer Thickness <i>z</i> Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: scores of OCT-derived measures to prognosticate future disease activity and disability worsening in people with MS (PwMS). METHODS: scores (pRNFL-z and GCIP-z) based on the reference data. Finally, we investigated the association of pRNFL-z or GCIP-z as predictors with future confirmed disability worsening (Expanded Disability Status Scale score increase) or disease activity (failing of the no evidence of disease activity [NEDA-3] criteria) as outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models or logistic regression analyses were applied according to the original studies. Optimal cutoffs were identified using the Akaike information criterion as well as location with the log-rank and likelihood-ratio tests. RESULTS: score approach with optimal cutoffs showed better performance in discrimination and calibration (higher Harrell's concordance index and lower integrated Brier score). DISCUSSION: scores that account for age, a major driver for disease progression in MS, to be a promising approach for creating OCT-derived measures useable across devices and toward individualized prognostication.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".