International evaluation of current practices in cognitive assessment for motor neurone disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Motor Neurone Disease (MND) is a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease, with up to 50% suffering from cognitive and/or behaviour changes. Aims: Evaluate current practices in the cognitive assessment of MND patients internationally. Methods: An online survey explored the use of cognitive assessments in MND clinics. Findings: 80/195 clinicians responded. The Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS) was the most popular method for evaluating cognition and 72% agreed that patients screened for cognitive change have better clinical care. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses indicated that cognitive assessments help to: identify and validate changes in cognition and behaviour, aid understanding of the clinical impact of the disease, inform and direct clinical care, and infer patients' decision-making abilities. However, a number of factors affected the implementation and administration of cognitive assessments in clinics. Conclusions: Cognitive assessments have been implemented in MND clinics internationally and have a positive impact on clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".