Nerve ultrasound in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ AIM: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease affecting upper and lower motor neurons, causing progressive atrophy of muscles, hypertonia, and paralysis. This study aimed to evaluate the current evidence and effectiveness of ultrasound in investigating nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) of peripheral nerves, vagus and cervical roots in those with ALS compared with healthy controls and to pool the CSA measurements. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Cochrane, Clarivate Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase for the mesh terms nerve, ultrasonography, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. A quality assessment was performed using the New-Ottawa scale. In addition, a double-arm meta-analysis using Review Manager 5 software version 5.4 was performed. RESULTS: From the seventeen studies included in this review, the overall mean difference showed that individuals with ALS had a significantly smaller CSA in comparison to healthy controls for median, ulnar, C6 root, and phrenic nerves. However, no significant difference in the CSA was found in radial, vagal, sural, and tibial nerves. DISCUSSION: This study confirmed results of some of the included studies regards the anatomic sites, where nerve atrophy in ALS could be detected to potentially support the diagnosis of ALS. However, we recommend further large, prospective studies to assess the diagnostic value of these anatomical sites for the diagnosis of ALS. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirmed specific anatomic sites to differentiate ALS patients from healthy controls through ultrasound. However, these findings cannot be used to confirm the ALS diagnosis, but rather assist in differentiating it from other diagnoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered on July 30th 2024 in PROSPERO (PROSPERO (york.ac.uk)) with ID574702.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".