Amelioration of motor and nonmotor symptoms in cortical cerebellar atrophy and multiple system atrophy-cerebellar type by inpatient rehabilitation: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sporadic spinocerebellar degenerative diseases such as multiple system atrophy (cerebellar type) and cortical cerebellar atrophy typically present with cerebellar ataxia. Multiple system atrophy is characterized by ataxia, with parkinsonism, dysautonomia and neuropsychiatric symptoms, resulting in reduced quality of life. Effects of physical rehabilitation focused on motor symptoms with ataxia in nonmultiple system atrophy patients have been reported; however, without addressing concomitant nonmotor symptoms. Here, we examined the motor, nonmotor and quality of life effects of inpatient physical rehabilitation in 15 multiple systems atrophy and nine cortical cerebellar atrophy patients without dementia. Rehabilitation involved a 4-week hospitalization with physical, occupational and speech therapy. The following assessments were conducted at admission and discharge: the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia for ataxia; Montreal cognitive assessment for cognition, hospital anxiety and depression scale for emotion and medical outcomes study short-form for health-related quality of life. Data were analyzed for statistical significance (P < 0.05) using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. In patients with multiple system atrophy, rehabilitation significantly improved ataxia, cognition with mild cognitive impairment (73.3%) and health-related quality of life; however, patients with depression (86.7%) showed no improvement in emotional health and quality of life. Similar effects on motor and nonmotor symptoms were observed in patients with cortical cerebellar atrophy. This suggests that inpatient rehabilitation could not only improve motor and nonmotor functions, but also the quality of life in patients with spinocerebellar degenerative disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".