Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1986;49:113-123 The mystery of the origin of multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Our present understanding of the aetiology and pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis is discussed in relation to the views of Sir William Gowers. He perceived that both environmental and genetic factors might be implicated in the aetiology of the disease. Evidence for the former was first reported in 1903, but has become convincing only in the past 20 years; the nature of the environ-mental factor remains obscure. Evidence for a genetic influence on susceptibility has accumulated since the 1 930s, the most compelling coming from the recent Canadian twin study. The number and mode of operation of the genetic factors is still uncertain, but there is evidence for the implication of genetically controlled cellular immune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of the disease. The precise relationship between transient changes in immunological status and the development ofnew lesions has yet to be defined; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) promises to play a significant role in this analysis because of its sensitivity in detecting abnormalities in multiple sclerosis. MRI is not in itself specific; it is probable that the similar appearances in multiple sclerosis and cerebral vascular disease both derive at least in part from the influence of astrocytic gliosis on proton content and distribution. The significance of the gliosis is uncertain. Gowers believed that the primary defect in multiple sclerosis lay in the astrocyte. Recent observations on the immunological functions of this cell in vitro
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".