A longitudinal study on quality of life and depression in ALS patient–caregiver couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the modification of quality of life (QoL) and depression in a series of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patient-caregiver couples during a period of 9 months and compare them to patients' ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALS-FRS). METHODS: Depression was assessed with Zung Depression Scale (ZDS) and QoL with McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQoL). Caregivers' burden was assessed with Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI), and patients' feeling to be a burden with the Self-Perceived Burden Scale (SPBS). RESULTS: Thirty-one ALS patient-caregiver couples were interviewed at baseline and after 9 months. The mean ALS-FRS score was 28.7 (SD 7) at baseline and 24.1 (6.9) at the second interview (p = 0.0001). Patients' mean MQoL score slightly increased from 6.8 (1.6) to 7 (1.1) (p = 0.07); their ZDS score slightly increased (43.2 [8.7] at baseline and 45.7 [9.3] at the second interview) but they remained in the not depressed range. Caregivers' mean MQoL score slightly decreased, and their mean ZDS increased from 38.9 (8.1) to 42.2 (8.7) (p = 0.02). The mean CBI score increased from 50.3 (17.6) to 55.8 (16.4) (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found a substantial steadiness of quality of life and depression in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis over a 9-month period, vs a significant increase of burden and depression of their caregivers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".