Article in Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
2 · The registry
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what money
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Floriana De AngelisQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9833-1435
Richard A ParkerEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Domenico PlantoneQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6666-7244
Anisha DoshiQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6699-8668
Nevin A JohnQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9834-4498
Thomas WilliamsQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Jonathan StuttersQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Dave MacManusQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0902-977X
Frederik BarkhofQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3543-3706
Christopher J WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Gavin GiovannoniBlizard Institute, Barts and The London, London, UK.
Jeremy ChatawayQueen Square Multiple Sclerosis Centre, Department of Neuroinflammation, University College London Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Sharmilee GnanapavanBlizard Institute, Barts and The London, London, UK.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
backgroundBiomarkers are needed to track progression in MS trials. Neurofilament heavy chain (NfH) has been underutilized due to assay limitations.
objectiveTo investigate the added value of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) NfH in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) using contemporary immunoassays.
methodsThis exploratory study was part of the MS-SMART trial. Clinical assessments (including expanded disability status scale, upper and lower limb function, visual acuity and symbol digit modalities test (SDMT)), CSF and serum sampling were acquired at baseline (
resultsBaseline CSF NfH and NfL correlated with information processing speed at 96 weeks, with CSF NfH showing stronger correlations (
conclusionCSF neurofilaments are better outcomes than serum neurofilaments in small SPMS studies. CSF NfH and NfL variably predict worsening hand function, information processing speed and brain volume loss, possibly reflecting complementary aspects of neurodegeneration.
Indexed as
Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic ProgressiveNeurofilament ProteinsAdultBiomarkersBrainDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkersneurofilament protein Hneurofilament protein LNeurofilament ProteinsbiomarkersNeurofilamentsprogressive multiple sclerosis
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.
Neurofilament heavy chain in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. · full record | OpenQuestion