The Classification of Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias: a Consensus Statement from the Society for Research on the Cerebellum and Ataxias Task Force
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
There is currently no accepted classification of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias, a group of disorders characterized by important genetic heterogeneity and complex phenotypes. The objective of this task force was to build a consensus on the classification of autosomal recessive ataxias in order to develop a general approach to a patient presenting with ataxia, organize disorders according to clinical presentation, and define this field of research by identifying common pathogenic molecular mechanisms in these disorders. The work of this task force was based on a previously published systematic scoping review of the literature that identified autosomal recessive disorders characterized primarily by cerebellar motor dysfunction and cerebellar degeneration. The task force regrouped 12 international ataxia experts who decided on general orientation and specific issues. We identified 59 disorders that are classified as primary autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias. For each of these disorders, we present geographical and ethnical specificities along with distinctive clinical and imagery features. These primary recessive ataxias were organized in a clinical and a pathophysiological classification, and we present a general clinical approach to the patient presenting with ataxia. We also identified a list of 48 complex multisystem disorders that are associated with ataxia and should be included in the differential diagnosis of autosomal recessive ataxias. This classification is the result of a consensus among a panel of international experts, and it promotes a unified understanding of autosomal recessive cerebellar disorders for clinicians and researchers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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