Quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients and caregivers: Impact of assistive communication from early stages
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study we performed a longitudinal investigation to assess the impact of early introduction of assistive communication devices (ACDs) on quality of life (QoL) in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients and their caregivers. METHODS: Patients were followed for 7-10 months (3 evaluation periods). Bulbar-onset ALS patients (N = 27) and paired caregivers (N = 17) were included. Fifteen randomly selected patients received early support in ACD use. Patients were assessed using the ALS Functional Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-R), the McGill QoL (MQoL), the Communication Effectiveness Index (CETI), and performance in writing; and caregivers were assessed with the MQoL and World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF). RESULTS: Patients with early support had higher MQoL Psychological and MQoL Existential well-being domains; caregivers had higher MQoL Support domain and their MQoL Psychological domain positively associated with patient CETI. Most patients could communicate using a touchscreen keyboard to write, even when handwriting and speech were not possible. CONCLUSION: Early intervention with an ACD seems to have a positive impact on QoL and gives patients the opportunity to improve skills for communication in later disease stages.
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.
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 it