Predicting Disease Progression in Multiple Sclerosis With Clinically Accessible Information and Technology Publisher Pubmed



Fuchs TAN ; Schoonheim MM ; Strijbis EMM ; Jelgerhuis JR ; Horakova D ; Havrdova EK ; Uher T ; Zivadinov R ; Ozakbas S ; Girard M ; Alroughani R ; Grammond P ; Lugaresi A ; Tomassini V Show All Authors
Source: Journal of Neurology Published:2026

Abstract

Background: Predicting 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. Methods: In 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). Results: Among 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. Conclusion: We 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. © The Author(s) 2026.