Quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients and caregivers: Impact of assistive communication from early stages
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".