Neuropsychological Functioning in PLS: A Comparison with ALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In order to characterize the nature and extent of neuropsychological dysfunction in primary lateral sclerosis (PLS), we studied prospectively cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning in PLS, and compared performances to functioning in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: Eighteen patients with PLS and 13 patients with ALS completed a neuropsychological test battery assessing both cognitive skills and emotional/behavioral functioning. RESULTS: Both PLS and ALS groups scored broadly within normal limits (mean T-scores greater than 40) on all cognitive measures and no significant between-group differences were found with the exception of one variable. However, when examined on a case by case basis, the data revealed considerable heterogeneity amongst patients in both groups. Overall, 39% of PLS patients and 31% of ALS patients were considered cognitively impaired. Ahigher than expected frequency of abnormal scores was noted for several tests of executive function in both groups, and a majority of PLS patients also exhibited abnormal behavioural symptoms. There was no relationship in PLS or ALS groups between cognitive functioning and disease duration, current site of disease, site of onset, functional status, and respiratory variables. Comparison between the PLS and ALS groups indicated virtually no differences in cognitive test scores and overall emotional/behavioural symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We observed deficits in cognition and behaviour in a significant proportion of PLS patients which were comparable to those observed in ALS cases. Although deficits were not in the range of frontotemporal dementia, both ALS and PLS cases demonstrated deficits most prominently on tests of executive functioning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".