Pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis: genetic, environmental and random mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis (MS) requires both genetic factors and environmental events. The question remains, however, whether these factors and events completely describe the MS disease process. This question was addressed using the Canadian MS data, which includes 29 478 individuals, estimated to represent 65–83% of all Canadian patients with MS. Method The ‘genetically-susceptible’ subset of the population, (G), includes everyone who has any non-zero life-time chance of developing MS, under some environmental conditions. A ‘sufficient’ environmental exposure, for any genetically-susceptible individual, includes every set of environmental conditions, each of which is ‘sufficient’, by itself, to cause MS in that person. This analysis incorporates many epidemiological parameters, involved in MS pathogenesis, only some of which are directly observable, and establishes ‘plausible’ value ranges for each parameter. Those parameter value combinations (ie, solutions) that fall within these plausible ranges are then determined. Results Only a small proportion of the population (≤52%) has any possibility of developing MS, regardless of any environmental conditions that they could experience. Moreover, some of these genetically-susceptible individuals, despite their experiencing a ‘sufficient’ environmental exposure, will still not develop disease. Conclusions This analysis explicitly includes all of those genetic factors and environmental events (including their interactions), which are necessary for MS pathogenesis, regardless of whether these factors, events and interactions are known, suspected or as yet unrecognised. Nevertheless, in addition, a ‘truly’ random mechanism also seems to play a critical role in disease pathogenesis. This observation provides empirical evidence, which undermines the widely-held deterministic view of nature. Moreover, both sexes seem to share a similar genetic and environmental disease basis. If so, then it is this random mechanism, which is primarily responsible for the currently-observed differences in MS disease expression between susceptible women and susceptible men .
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".