Genotype-specific spinal cord damage in spinocerebellar ataxias: an ENIGMA-Ataxia study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Spinal cord damage is a feature of many spinocerebellar ataxias (SCAs), but well-powered in vivo studies are lacking and links with disease severity and progression remain unclear. Here we characterise cervical spinal cord morphometric abnormalities in SCA1, SCA2, SCA3 and SCA6 using a large multisite MRI dataset. Methods Upper spinal cord (vertebrae C1–C4) cross-sectional area (CSA) and eccentricity (flattening) were assessed using MRI data from nine sites within the ENIGMA-Ataxia consortium, including 364 people with ataxic SCA, 56 individuals with preataxic SCA and 394 nonataxic controls. Correlations and subgroup analyses within the SCA cohorts were undertaken based on disease duration and ataxia severity. Results Individuals in the ataxic stage of SCA1, SCA2 and SCA3, relative to non-ataxic controls, had significantly reduced CSA and increased eccentricity at all examined levels. CSA showed large effect sizes ( d >2.0) and correlated with ataxia severity (r<−0.43) and disease duration (r<−0.21). Eccentricity correlated only with ataxia severity in SCA2 (r=0.28). No significant spinal cord differences were evident in SCA6. In preataxic individuals, CSA was significantly reduced in SCA2 ( d =1.6) and SCA3 ( d =1.7), and the SCA2 group also showed increased eccentricity ( d =1.1) relative to nonataxic controls. Subgroup analyses confirmed that CSA and eccentricity are abnormal in early disease stages in SCA1, SCA2 and SCA3. CSA declined with disease progression in all, whereas eccentricity progressed only in SCA2. Conclusions Spinal cord abnormalities are an early and progressive feature of SCA1, SCA2 and SCA3, but not SCA6, which can be captured using quantitative MRI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".