The strength of corticomotoneuronal drive underlies ALS split phenotypes and reflects early upper motor neuron dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Split phenotypes, (split hand, elbow, leg, and foot), are probably unique to ALS, and are characterized by having a shared peripheral input of both affected and unaffected muscles. This implies an anatomical origin rostral to the spinal cord, primarily within the cerebral cortex. Therefore, split phenotypes are a potential marker of ALS upper motor neuron pathology. However, to date, reports documenting upper motor neuron dysfunction in split phenotypes have been limited to using transcranial magnetic stimulation and cortical threshold tracking techniques. Here, we consider several other potential methodologies that could confirm a primary upper motor neuron pathology in split phenotypes. METHODS: We review the potential of: 1. measuring the compound excitatory post-synaptic potential recorded from a single activated motor unit, 2. cortical-muscular coherence, and 3. new advanced modalities of neuroimaging (high-resolution imaging protocols, ultra-high field MRI platforms [7T], and novel Non-Gaussian diffusion models). CONCLUSIONS: We propose that muscles involved in split phenotypes are those functionally involved in the human motor repertoire used particularly in complex activities. Their anterior horn cells receive the strongest corticomotoneuronal input. This is also true of the weakest muscles that are the earliest to be affected in ALS. Descriptions of split hand in non-ALS cases and proposals that peripheral nerve or muscle dysfunction may be causative are contentious. Only a few carefully controlled cases of each form of split phenotype, using upper motor neuron directed methodologies, are necessary to prove our postulate.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".