Spanish adaptation of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Questionnaire ALSAQ-40 for ALS patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the cross-cultural Spanish adaptation of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-40) to assess the subjective health status in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. The ALSAQ-40 questionnaire was adapted and applied to 53 randomly selected ALS patients from different regions in Spain. Reliability assessment and factorial analysis were performed in order to determine the dimensions of the scale. The validation was carried out by means of comparing the ALSAQ-40 with two instruments usually used in the assessment of ALS patients--the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS) and the McGill's Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), comparing the latter with the emotional dimension of ALSAQ-40. This Spanish adaptation closely resembles the ALSAQ-40 although the emotional dimension is more heterogeneous and there are cluster-gathering Feeding and Communication dimensions. ALSAQ-40 and ALSFRS questionnaires showed a high correlation, as did the emotional dimension of ALSAQ-40 with the Psychological Symptoms, Life Expectancy, Meaningful Existence and the whole score of the MQOL. In conclusion, this Spanish adaptation of ALSAQ-40 is in accordance with the statistical results from the original English version.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".