MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980061931 · doi:10.1002/mds.22776

Clinical measures of dysarthria in Friedreich Ataxia

2009· article· en· W1980061931 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arunjot Singh, Elizabeth Epstein, Lauren Myers, Jennifer Farmer, David R. Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMuscular Dystrophy AssociationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFriedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance
KeywordsDysarthriaAtaxiaIntelligibility (philosophy)AudiologyAphasiaPsychologyCerebellar ataxiaLanguage disorderPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dysarthria in Friedreich Ataxia (FA) is difficult to quantify. This study evaluated a series of performance measures for speech in 22 patients with genetically confirmed FA and 16 age-matched controls. Tests included the PATA examination, the PATAKA examination, the Oral Motor component of the Boston Aphasia examination, the Boston Cookie Theft description task, and the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. All measures, except the Cookie theft description task, demonstrated significantly lower scores for patients with FA when compared with controls and correlated with measures of disease progression. Thus, four of five measures capture speech dysfunction in FA and may provide feasible, inexpensive, quantitative testing for therapeutic monitoring in FA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207