An analytical review on the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in diagnosis, prediction, and risk factor analysis of multiple sclerosis.

• Summarizes research results in the MS field and proposes standardized definitions for common clinical courses. • Enhances mutual understanding between clinicians and researchers, crucial for trial recruitment and expected outcomes. • ML techniques, including NNs, prove effective in identifying risk factors and MS-related features. • Provides a comprehensive overview of recent progress in MS research, facilitating comparative analysis of advancements. • Offers a roadmap for future research for mitigating the risks associated with MS. Medical research offers potential for disease prediction, like Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This neurological disorder damages nerve cell sheaths, with treatments focusing on symptom relief. Manual MS detection is time-consuming and error prone. Though MS lesion detection has been studied, limited attention has been paid to clinical analysis and computational risk factor prediction. Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and Machine Learning (ML) methods offer accurate and effective alternatives to mapping MS progression. However, there are challenges in accessing clinical data and interdisciplinary collaboration. By analyzing 103 papers, we recognize the trends, strengths and weaknesses of AI, ML, and statistical methods applied to MS diagnosis. AI/ML-based approaches are suggested to identify MS risk factors, select significant MS features, and improve the diagnostic accuracy, such as Rule-based Fuzzy Logic (RBFL), Adaptive Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), Artificial Neural Network methods (ANN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Bayesian Networks (BNs). Meanwhile, applications of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) can enhance MS diagnostic accuracy. By examining established risk factors like obesity, smoking, and education, some research tackled the issue of disease progression. The performance metrics varied across different aspects of MS studies: Diagnosis: Sensitivity ranged from 60 % to 98 %, specificity from 60 % to 98 %, and accuracy from 61 % to 97 %. Prediction: Sensitivity ranged from 76 % to 98 %, specificity from 65 % to 98 %, and accuracy from 62 % to 99 %. Segmentation: Accuracy ranged up to 96.7 %. Classification: Sensitivity ranged from 78 % to 97.34 %, specificity from 65 % to 99.32 %, and accuracy from 71 % to 97.94 %. Furthermore, the literature shows that combining techniques can improve efficiency, exploiting their strengths for better overall performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]