Differential Temporal Dynamics of Axial and Appendicular Ataxia in <scp>SCA3</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disease severity in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SCA3) is commonly defined by the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) sum score, but little is known about the contributions and progression patterns of individual items. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the temporal dynamics of SARA item scores in SCA3 patients and evaluate if clinical and demographic factors are differentially associated with evolution of axial and appendicular ataxia. METHODS: In a prospective, multinational cohort study involving 11 European and 2 US sites, SARA scores were determined longitudinally in 223 SCA3 patients with a follow-up assessment after 1 year. RESULTS: An increase in SARA score from 10 to 20 points was mainly driven by axial and speech items, with a markedly smaller contribution of appendicular items. Finger chase and nose-finger test scores not only showed the lowest variability at baseline, but also the least deterioration at follow-up. Compared with the full set of SARA items, omission of both tests would result in lower sample size requirements for therapeutic trials. Sex was associated with change in SARA sum score and appendicular, but not axial, subscore, with a significantly faster progression in men. Despite considerable interindividual variability, the average annual progression rate of SARA score was approximately three times higher in subjects with a disease duration over 10 years than in those within 10 years from onset. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence for a difference in temporal dynamics between axial and appendicular ataxia in SCA3 patients, which will help inform the design of clinical trials and development of new (etiology-specific) outcome measures. © 2022 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".