GFAP and NfL as predictors of disease progression and relapse activity in fingolimod-treated multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In multiple sclerosis (MS) patients under therapy, the increase of serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) concentrations is associated with the course of 'progression in absence of relapse' (PIRA). While serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) reflects both response as well as insufficient or lack of efficiency of disease-modifying therapies (DMT), the longitudinal course of sGFAP levels as a drug response marker for future PIRA in relation to specific types of DMT is less clear. We aimed to compare the predictive capacity of sGFAP and sNfL for PIRA and relapse activity and the longitudinal course in people with MS (PwMS) treated with fingolimod, based on Z scores derived from normative values. Overall, 420 PwMS under fingolimod treatment with follow-up of 9.1 years (interquartile range: 7.0-11.0) from the Swiss MS Cohort, contributing 2935 longitudinal serum samples, were included. A reference data set for sGFAP established from 4297 healthy controls across three European and North American cohorts was used to calculate Z scores. The longitudinal course and the predictive capacity of biomarkers for time to PIRA and relapse were assessed by Cox proportional hazards and linear mixed-effects models. In controls, sGFAP concentrations were 13.6% higher in females than males and increased exponentially with age. Altogether, 31.0% of PwMS experienced ≥1 PIRA event. Elevated sGFAP Z scores (>0.75) were associated with increased risk of PIRA [hazard ratio (HR): 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.32; P = 0.006], while this was not the case for sNfL. Conversely, elevated sNfL predicted relapses (HR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.13-2.23; P = 0.008), while sGFAP did not. Both biomarkers decreased under treatment: sGFAP by 0.19 Z score units (ZSU)/10 years (95% CI: -0.27 to -0.11; P < 0.001) and sNfL by 0.16 ZSU/10 years (95% CI: -0.27 to -0.06; P = 0.002). Serum GFAP remained elevated in PwMS with future PIRA events (estimate: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.07-0.50; P = 0.009); no such association was found for sNfL. Serum GFAP and sNfL Z scores provide complementary predictive capacity for PIRA and relapse risk. The decrease of sGFAP under fingolimod is a feature not observed with other types of DMT and may hint to a specific anti-neurodegenerative effect of Sphingosine-1-phosphate-receptor modulators on astrocytes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".