Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

New Multiple Sclerosis Phenotypic Classification

Lublin, Fred D.·2014·European Neurology

Abstract

Background: In 1996, the clinical course of multiple sclerosis (MS) was characterized as relapsing-remitting, primary progressive, secondary progressive or progressive relapsing. Since then, an increased understanding of MS and its pathology prompted a re-examination of these clinical phenotypes. Main recommendations of the 2013 revisions are provided herein. Summary: Clinically isolated syndrome has been added, and progressive relapsing MS has been eliminated, from the clinical course descriptions. All forms of MS should be further subcategorized as either active or non-active. Active MS is defined as the occurrence of clinical relapse or the presence of new T2 or gadolinium-enhancing lesions over a specified period of time, preferably at least one year. An additional subcategory for patients with progressive MS differentiates between those who have shown signs of disability progression over a given time period and those who have remained stable. The term ‘worsening' is recommended to describe patients whose disease is advancing for any reason, whereas ‘disease progression' should be reserved for those with progressive disease who are truly progressing (as opposed to worsening from a relapse). The term ‘benign' should be used with caution as the course of MS can worsen at any time, even after many years of apparent stability. Key Messages: Newer characterizations of MS phenotypes include a consideration of disease activity (based on the clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression. Accurate clinical course descriptions are useful for communication, prognostication, clinical trial design and to guide everyday clinical decision-making. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000367614

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1212/WNL.46.4.907 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1002/ana.21079 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/ana.21867 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 4,259

Metadata

Authors
Lublin, F. D.
Venue
European Neurology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2014
Volume
72
Issue
Suppl. 1
Pages
1-5
ISSN
  • 0014-3022 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9913
OpenAlex
W2142577589
Cited by
4,259
References
2
FWCI
267.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New Multiple Sclerosis Phenotypic Classification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000367614
The paper
Lublin, F. D. (2014). New Multiple Sclerosis Phenotypic Classification. European Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000367614

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.