Defining high, medium, and low impact prognostic factors for developing multiple sclerosis
Abstract
Natural history studies have identified factors that predict evolution to multiple sclerosis or risk of disability accumulation over time. Although these studies are based on large multicentre cohorts with long follow-ups, they have limitations such as lack of standardized protocols, a retrospective data collection or lack of a systematic magnetic resonance imaging acquisition and analysis protocol, often resulting in failure to take magnetic resonance and oligoclonal bands into account as joint covariates in the prediction models. To overcome some of these limitations, the aim of our study was to identify and stratify baseline demographic, clinical, radiological and biological characteristics that might predict multiple sclerosis development and disability accumulation using a multivariate approach based on a large prospective cohort of patients with clinically isolated syndromes. From 1995 to 2013, 1058 patients with clinically isolated syndromes were included. We evaluated the influence of baseline prognostic factors on the risk for developing clinically definite multiple sclerosis, McDonald multiple sclerosis, and disability accumulation (Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 3.0) based on univariate (hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals) and multivariate (adjusted hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals) Cox regression models. We ultimately included 1015 patients followed for a mean of 81 (standard deviation = 57) months. Female/male ratio was 2.1. Females e…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent studies showed that inclusion of symptomatic lesions in the MRI determination of DIS or DIT increases MS diagnostic sensitivity with little or no reduction in specificity.
“Recent studies showed that inclusion of symptomatic lesions in the MRI determination of DIS or DIT increases MS diagnostic sensitivity with little or no reduction in specificity 70,71 and was proposed in the 2016 MAGNIMS Criteria. 7,72”
From Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria (2018) · cites this paper as [70]
Cites
Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS)
Kurtzke, J. F. (1983) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444 · Cited by 15,011 · see citing works
Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria
Polman, C. H., Reingold, S. C., Banwell, B., Clanet, M., Cohen, J. A., Filippi, M., Fujihara, K., Havrdova, E., Hutchinson, M., Kappos, L., et al. (2011) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.22366 · Cited by 9,802 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria
Thompson, A. J., Banwell, B. L., Barkhof, F., Carroll, W. M., Coetzee, T., Comi, G., Correale, J., Fazekas, F., Filippi, M., Freedman, M. S., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30470-2 · Cited by 8,167 · see citing works
Self-citationVidal-Jordana, A., Rovira, A., Calderon, W., Arrambide, G., Castilló, J., Moncho, D., Rahnama, K., Collorone, S., Toosy, A. T., Ciccarelli, O., et al. (2024) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000207805 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationPositive cerebrospinal fluid in the 2024 McDonald criteria for multiple sclerosis
Deisenhammer, F., Hegen, H., Arrambide, G., Banwell, B. L., Coetzee, T., Gnanapavan, S., Montalban, X., Tumani, H., Willrich, M. A., & Freedman, M. S. (2025) · eBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105905 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Tintore, M., Rovira, À., Río, J., Otero-Romero, S., Arrambide, G., Tur, C., Comabella, M., Nos, C., Arévalo, M. J., Negrotto, L., Galán, I., Vidal-Jordana, A., Castilló, J., Palavra, F., Simon, E., Mitjana, R., Auger, C., Sastre-Garriga, J., & Montalban, X.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Brain
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-04-21
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1863-1874
- ISSN
- 0006-8950 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2156
- OpenAlex
- W2058583207
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 38.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Brain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Polyomavirus and related diseases
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Psoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
- Keywords
- clinically isolated syndrome, conversion to multiple sclerosis, disability progression, prognostic factors, oligoclonal bands, brain lesions, magnetic resonance imaging, optic neuritis, disease-modifying therapy, age of onset, sex differences, Expanded Disability Status Scale, McDonald criteria, relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, primary progressive multiple sclerosis
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Demyelinating Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Disease Progression, Oligoclonal Bands
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review