Measurement of upper limb function in ALS: a structured review of current methods and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of upper limb function is critical for tracking clinical severity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-r) is the primary outcome measure utilised in clinical trials and research in ALS. This scale is limited by floor and ceiling effects within subscales, such that clinically meaningful changes for subjects are often missed, impacting upon the evaluation of new drugs and treatments. Technology has the potential to provide sensitive, objective outcome measurement. This paper is a structured review of current methods and future trends in the measurement of upper limb function with a particular focus on ALS. Technologies that have the potential to radically change the upper limb measurement field and explore the limitations of current technological sensors and solutions in terms of costs and user suitability are discussed. The field is expanding but there remains an unmet need for simple, sensitive and clinically meaningful tests of upper limb function in ALS along with identifying consensus on the direction technology must take to meet this need.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".