Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in patients with ALS and bulbar dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of ALS patients with and without percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). METHODS: Using the ALS Patient Care Database, data from patients with and without PEG with ALS Functional Rating Scale-bulbar subscale (ALSFRSb) scores < or = 5 were analyzed; follow-up data were also collected. RESULTS: PEG use was markedly increased with declining ALSFRSb scores. Demographics did not differ, but ALSFRS composite scores and bulbar and arm subscale scores were lower (P<0.0001). PEG patients used significantly more assistive devices, multidisciplinary care, home care nurses and aides, had more frequent physician and emergency department visits and hospital admissions (P<0.0001), and had lower health status based on the mini-SIP scale (P=0.0047). PEG use varied greatly between ALS centers. In the follow-up study, positive impact of PEG was noted in 79 % of PEG patients but in only 37.5% of patients who received PEG later, based on a small number of patients. PEG use showed no survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Patients did not receive PEG until bulbar function was severely reduced and overall ALS had markedly progressed. PEG may have been performed too late to demonstrate survival benefits. Aggressive proactive nutritional management appears essential in patients with ALS. To determine whether PEG provides benefits, it must be performed at earlier stages of the disease and prospectively studied.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".