Provisional best practices guidelines for the evaluation of bulbar dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Universally established comprehensive clinical bulbar scales objectively assessing disease progression in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are currently lacking. The goal of this working group project is to design a best practice set of provisional bulbar ALS guidelines, available for immediate implementation within all ALS clinics. METHODS: ALS specialists across multiple related disciplines participated in a series of clinical bulbar symposia, intending to identify and summarize the currently accepted best practices for the assessment and management of bulbar dysfunction in ALS Results: Summary group recommendations for individual speech, Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), and swallowing sections were achieved, focusing on the optimal proposed level of care within each domain. DISCUSSION: We have identified specific clinical recommendations for each of the 3 domains of bulbar functioning, available for incorporation within all ALS clinics. Future directions will be to establish a formal set of bulbar guidelines through a methodological and evidence-based approach. Muscle Nerve 59:531-531, 2019.
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 | 0.097 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".