Cognitive Impairment Is Part of the Phenotype of Cerebellar Ataxia, Neuropathy, Vestibular Areflexia Syndrome (<scp>CANVAS)</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of the cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS) on cognition. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the frequency and severity of cognitive impairment in RFC1-positive patients and describe the pattern of deficits. METHODS: Participants underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. Volume of the cerebellum and its lobules was measured in those who underwent a 3 Tesla-magnetic resonance scan. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients underwent a complete assessment, including 71% scoring lower than the cutoff at the Montreal Cognitive assessment and 71% having a definite cerebellar cognitive affective/Schmahmann syndrome. Three patients had dementia and seven met the criteria of mild cognitive impairment. Severity of cognitive impairment did not correlate with severity of clinical manifestations. Performance at memory and visuospatial functions tests negatively correlated with the severity of cerebellar manifestations. CONCLUSION: Cognitive manifestations are frequent in RFC1-related disorders. They should be included in the phenotype and screened systematically. © 2024 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".