Responsiveness of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia and Natural History in 884 Recessive and Early Onset Ataxia Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) is the most widely applied clinical outcome assessment (COA) for genetic ataxias, but presents metrological and regulatory challenges. To facilitate trial planning, we characterize its responsiveness (including subitem-level relations to ataxia severity and patient-focused outcomes) across a large number of ataxias, and provide first natural history data for several of them. METHODS: Subitem-level correlation and distribution-based analysis of 1,637 SARA assessments in 884 patients with autosomal recessive/early onset ataxia (370 with 2-8 longitudinal assessments) were complemented by linear mixed effects modeling to estimate progression and sample sizes. RESULTS: Although SARA subitem responsiveness varied between ataxia severities, gait/stance showed a robust granular linear scaling across the broadest range (SARA < 25). Responsiveness was diminished by incomplete subscale use at intermediate or upper levels, nontransitions ("static periods"), and fluctuating decreases/increases. All subitems except nose-finger showed moderate-to-strong correlations to activities of daily living, indicating that metric properties-not content validity-limit SARA responsiveness. SARA captured mild-to-moderate progression in many genotypes (eg, SYNE1-ataxia: 0.55 points/yr, ataxia with oculomotor apraxia type 2: 1.14 points/yr, POLG-ataxia: 1.56 points/yr), but no change in others (autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay, COQ8A-ataxia). Whereas sensitivity to change was optimal in mild ataxia (SARA < 10), it substantially deteriorated in advanced ataxia (SARA > 25; 2.7-fold sample size). Use of a novel rank-optimized SARA without subitems finger-chase and nose-finger reduces sample sizes by 20 to 25%. INTERPRETATION: This study comprehensively characterizes COA properties and annualized changes of the SARA across and within a large number of ataxias. It suggests specific approaches for optimizing its responsiveness that might facilitate regulatory qualification and trial design. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:470-485.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".