Cognitive function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a cross-sectional and prospective pragmatic clinical study with review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) can present with either bulbar or spinal symptoms, and in some cases, both types of symptoms may be present. In addition, cognitive impairment has been observed in ALS. The study aimed to evaluate the frontal and general cognitive performance in ALS not only cross-sectionally but also longitudinally. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were employed to assess cognitive function in 52 adults with ALS and 52 cognitively healthy individuals. The statistical analyses encompassed the Pearson Chi square test, the Skillings-Mack test, the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and the Proportional Odds Logistic Regression Model (POLR). RESULTS: Cross-sectionally, lower cognitive performance was associated with ALS diagnosis, older age, and motor functional decline. The cognitive impairment of individuals with bulbar and spinal-bulbar symptoms showed faster deterioration compared to those with spinal symptoms. The spinal subgroup consistently performed worst in delayed recall and attention, while the spinal-bulbar and bulbar subgroups exhibited inferior scores in delayed recall, attention, visuospatial skills, orientation, and verbal fluency. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of cognitive screening in the diagnostic workup of ALS may be beneficial, as early detection can enhance symptom management and improve the quality of life for both individuals with ALS and their care partners.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".