Evaluation of Quality of Life in Complete Locked-In Syndrome Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few studies where quality of life (QOL) and contributive factors are assessed in locked-in syndrome (LIS) patients with complete physical and functional disability and dependence on caregivers. OBJECTIVE: The study's objective was evaluation of QOL in LIS patients. DESIGN: We have compared QOL in LIS patients with QOL in healthy controls (control group). SETTING/SUBJECTS: We have included 19 LIS patients, most of them with vascular etiologies or terminal course of ALS, and 20 healthy controls comparable with LIS patients for age; none of them was in a caregiving position. MEASUREMENTS: Administered to patients and controls were the McGill Quality of Life Single Item Scale (MQOL-SIS) Part A; Short Form survey (SF-36), Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS); Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II); and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS). RESULTS: Mean MQOL-SIS and MCS SF-36 were not significantly different between the LIS group and healthy controls. PCS SF-36 score was significantly higher in controls. There were no significant differences between the two groups for TAS scores. Frequency of depressive symptoms was significantly higher in LIS patients than in controls. CONCLUSION: In our study, QOL in LIS patients was not significantly altered compared to control subjects in MQOL-SIS and in the MCS SF-36 scale; these results match previous studies published in the literature. Several factors may have an impact on QOL in LIS patients, such as family support and patient-computer communication devices; these may have contributed to improve QOL in LIS patients in this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".