Regional spread pattern predicts survival in patients with sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (sALS) is a disease with a focal clinical onset and contiguous spread. We examined patterns of disease spread following symptoms onset in sALS and whether the pattern of spread predicted survival. METHODS: Review of medical records (2003-2009) at London Ontario and Buenos Aires clinic cohorts retrieved 318 patients with sporadic sALS. According to patient self-report, we determined eight spread patterns: rostro-caudal, caudo-rostral, crossed, circular, superior interposed, middle interposed, inferior interposed and isolated. The variables studied were as follows: age, gender, sALS phenotypes, time from onset to diagnosis and time and direction of the spreading to the first region. Survival from symptoms onset was analysed by Kaplan-Meier, Tarone-Ware and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: The direction of first spread was horizontal in 33%, rostral to caudal in 32% and caudal to rostral in 21%, whereas spread to remote regions was observed in 14% of patients. Survival curves and 3- and 5-year survival rates favoured patients with an isolated and caudo-rostral pattern of spread compared to patients progressing to distant regions without involvement in the intervening region, or 'superior and inferior interposed patterns' (Tarone-Ware P = 0.001, χ(2) = 0.002 and χ(2) = 0.006, respectively). Factors affecting survival were gender, time to diagnosis, flail arm phenotype and age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: We have provided evidence that not all spread in ALS is contiguous and that the nature of symptom progression influences survival. Patients with sALS with 'interposed patterns' had a worse prognosis, whereas patients with caudo-rostral pattern fared better than the rest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".