ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Predicting disease progression in multiple sclerosis with clinically accessible information and technology.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in a real word retrospective cohort: the role of clinical factors and disease-modifying therapy patterns.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Building Towards Initiation, Moderation, De-Escalation and Cessation of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis in Greece: An Expert Panel Consensus Meeting.Brain sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
75 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPredicting disease progression at the individual level is essential for personalized medicine. We previously developed machine-learning tools to estimate 5-year progression risk in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Such models should account for disease-modifying therapy (DMT) and objective outcome definitions.
methodsIn a retrospective multicenter case-control study, we evaluated adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) at baseline. Using machine-learning, we developed two complementary tools for individualized 5-year risk estimation: DAAE-M, optimized for transparency, software-neutral use, and mitigation of indication bias, and ELIE, optimized for dynamic landmark-based modeling, complex treatment histories, and mitigation of immortal-time bias. Disease progression was defined using both a clinical outcome (RRMS-to-progressive MS) and an objective outcome (late-stage confirmed progression independent of relapse activity).
resultsAmong 34,510 people with RRMS (72.6% female, mean age = 37.1, mean disease duration = 5.8), 9.8% and 21% met clinical and objective progression criteria, respectively, over five years. Both models demonstrated good calibration across risk-groups (Brier scores 0.06-0.16). DAAE-M provided patient-level risk estimates with monotonic risk escalation across risk-groups for clinical (3.1%/11.2%/22.6%/33.0%) and objective (8.4%/14.5%/23.3%/38.8%) progression. For DAAE-M, high-efficacy DMT was associated with approximately half the progression risk compared with low-efficacy DMT (risk-ratios: 0.42-0.59; p < 0.01). ELIE also showed good calibration across risk deciles with increasing incidence for both clinical (0.3%/1.2%/1.7%/2.5%/3.7%/5.5%/7.2%/10.2%/14.3%/21.5%) and objective (0.9%/1.6%/2.5%/4.0%/5.8%/7.8%/10.2%/15.3%/20.9%/32.5%) outcomes.
conclusionWe developed two well-calibrated machine-learning-based tools for individualized 5-year prediction of clinically- and objectively-defined MS progression, each with distinct strengths in usability, bias handling, and treatment modeling. These findings support future tool use in personalized risk stratification and secondary prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.