MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991192713 · doi:10.1080/14660820410021267

Primary lateral sclerosis, hereditary spastic paraplegia and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Discrete entities or spectrum?

2005· review· en· W1991192713 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisHereditary spastic paraplegiaMedicineUpper motor neuronSpasticityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor neuronLower motor neuronNeurosciencePathologyPsychologyDiseasePhenotypeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the motor neuron diseases, three share the clinical features of prominent upper motor neuron signs--amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), primary lateral sclerosis (PLS) and the hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSP). While genetic testing can assist in the identification of several variants of the latter, in the remaining cases, including those in which spasticity may be associated with amyotrophy, clinical differentiation of the three disorders may prove difficult. In this paper we review the evidence that these are distinct disorders and conclude that, for ALS and PLS particularly, there may be justification in considering them as single points along a continuum of multisystem disorders with conspicuous motor neuron involvement. Only through the development and application of exacting clinical diagnostic criteria to epidemiological studies, along with greater numbers of post-mortem examinations, however, will these questions be answered fully.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmyotrophic Lateral SclerosisSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207