MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312129430 · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2022.120527

Spinocerebellar ataxia type 31: A clinical and radiological literature review

2022· review· en· W4312129430 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Saucier, Mohammad Al-Qadi, Mouna Ben Amor, Kinya Ishikawa, Ludivine Chamard-Witkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Neurological Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysarthriaHypoesthesiaSpinocerebellar ataxiaAtaxiaMedicineCerebellar ataxiaPediatricsGait AtaxiaAtrophyAudiologyPathologySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinocerebellar ataxia type 31 (SCA31) is an autosomal dominant disease, classified amongst pure cerebellar ataxias (ADCA type 3). While SCA31 is the third most prevalent autosomal dominant ataxia in Japan, it is extremely rare in other countries. A literature review was conducted on PubMed, where we included all case reports and studies describing the clinical presentation of original SCA31 cases. The clinical and radiological features of 374 patients issued from 25 studies were collected. This review revealed that the average age of onset was 59.1 ± 3.3 years, with symptoms of slowly progressing ataxia and dysarthria. Other common clinical features were oculomotor dysfunction (38.8%), dysphagia (22.1%), hypoacousia (23.3%), vibratory hypoesthesia (24.3%), and dysreflexia (41.6%). Unfrequently, abnormal movements (7.4%), extrapyramidal symptoms (4.5%) and cognitive impairment (6.9%) may be observed. Upon radiological examination, clinicians can expect a high prevalence of cerebellar atrophy (78.7%), occasionally accompanied by brainstem (9.1%) and cortical (9.1%) atrophy. Although SCA31 is described as a slowly progressive pure cerebellar syndrome characterized by cerebellar signs such as ataxia, dysarthria and oculomotor dysfunction, this study evaluated a high prevalence of extracerebellar manifestations. Extracerebellar signs were observed in 52.5% of patients, primarily consisting of dysreflexia, vibratory hypoesthesia and hypoacousia. Nonetheless, we must consider the old age and longstanding disease course of patients as a confounding factor for extracerebellar sign development, as some may not be directly attributable to SCA31. Clinicians should consider SCA31 in patients with a hereditary, pure cerebellar syndrome and in patients with extracerebellar signs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Neurological SciencesSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207