Quality of life in ALS is maintained as physical function declines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study patients with ALS to determine how physical function, quality of life (QOL), and spirituality or religiousness change over time, and what relationship these changes have to one another. METHODS: Sixty patients with ALS were studied prospectively. They were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, using questionnaires designed to measure general quality of life (McGill Quality of Life questionnaire), religiosity (Idler Index of Religiosity), ALS-specific health-related quality of life (SIP/ALS-19), and ALS-specific function (ALS functional rating scale). RESULTS: A two-way repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed that both the passage of time and the specific QOL scales used were factors in predicting patient quality of life (F[1, 59]= 9.87, p < 0.003 and F[3, 177]= 16.90, p < 0.001) Despite a progressive decline in physical function as measured by the ALS-specific function score, the general QOL and religiosity scores changed little. In contrast, the ALS-specific health-related QOL score declined in parallel with the ALS-specific function score. CONCLUSIONS: QOL in patients with ALS appears to be independent of physical function, which agrees with a previous cross-sectional study. The ALS-specific health-related QOL score is primarily a measure of physical function. QOL instruments that assess spiritual, religious, and psychological factors produce different results than those obtained using measures of physical function alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".