MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203214899 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2010.222646.7

G07 Differences between Huntington's disease and spinocerebellar ataxia types 1 and 2 on cognitive and behavioural profile

2010· article· en· W2203214899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paola Soliveri, Caterina Mariotti, Dominga Paridi, D. Monza, Chiara Tomasello, Marta Panzeri, Franco Taroni, Alberto Albanese, F. Girotti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaven's Progressive MatricesVerbal fluency testPsychologySpinocerebellar ataxiaCognitionAnxietyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentExecutive functionsHuntington's diseaseAudiologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryDiseaseCognitive impairmentNeuropsychologyMedicineAtaxiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Huntington9s disease (HD) patients show progressive, mostly frontal-striatal-type, cognitive deterioration, and heterogeneous psychiatric symptoms. In a previous study, we found that negative psychiatric symptoms were common in HD. Like HD, spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs) are adult onset dominantly transmitted triplet expansion neurodegenerative diseases that affect cognition and behaviour, although these aspects have not been exhaustively explored. Aims To compare cognitive and psychiatric impairment in HD and the two most common SCA forms in Italy (types 1 and 2). Methods We examined 15 HD, 15 SCA1 and 15 SCA2 patients of similar age and education. We assessed functional invalidity with the Total Functional Capacity scale. To assess cognitive state we used: Raven Progressive Matrices for non-verbal deductive reasoning; the Short Tale Test for long term verbal memory; the Phonemic Fluency Test for strategic search for words; the Visual Search Test for focused attention; and the Benton Visual Orientation Line Test for orientation and spatial perception. We examined anxiety and depression with the Hamilton Rating Scales for Anxiety and Depression. The Scales for the Assessment of Positive and Negative (SANS) Psychiatric Symptoms were also used to assess schizophrenia-like symptoms. Results HD patients did worse than SCA1 patients on most cognitive tests, except focused attention, where the two groups performed similarly. SCA2 patients had similar compromise to HD patients on most cognitive tests except verbal fluency, where HD did worse. The three groups did not differ on anxiety, depression or SAPS score but HD patients had a higher Scales for the Assessment of Positive and Negative score. Conclusions Although cognitive impairment is greatest in HD, the impairment pattern in all three diseases is consistent with frontal-striatal dysfunction. However, the greater prominence of negative psychiatric symptoms in HD constitutes a clear difference compared with the similarly invalidating SCAs, also characterised by frontal-striatal dysfunction. The difference may be due to differing involvement of the frontal-striatal and cerebellar-striatal circuits in these conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207