Assessing multimodal emotion recognition in multiple sclerosis with a clinically accessible measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) negatively impacts cognition and has been associated with deficits in social cognition, including emotion recognition. There is a lack of research examining emotion recognition from multiple modalities in MS. The present study aimed to employ a clinically available measure to assess multimodal emotion recognition abilities among individuals with MS. METHOD: Thirty-one people with MS and 21 control participants completed the Advanced Clinical Solutions Social Perceptions Subtest (ACS-SP), BICAMS, and measures of premorbid functioning, mood, and fatigue. ANCOVAs examined group differences in all outcomes while controlling for education. Correlational analyses examined potential correlates of emotion recognition in both groups. RESULTS: The MS group performed significantly worse on the ACS-SP than the control group, F(1, 49) = 5.32, p = .025. Significant relationships between emotion recognition and cognitive functions were found only in the MS group, namely for information processing speed (r = 0.59, p < .001), verbal learning (r = 0.52, p = .003) and memory (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), and visuospatial learning (r = 0.62, p < 0.001) and memory (r = 0.52, p = .003). Emotion recognition did not correlate with premorbid functioning, mood, or fatigue in either group. CONCLUSIONS: This study was the first to employ the ACS-SP to assess emotion recognition in MS. The results suggest that emotion recognition is impacted in MS and is related to other cognitive processes, such as information processing speed. The results provide information for clinicians amidst calls to include social cognition measures in standard MS assessments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".