Contralateral R1 response in blink reflex in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Contralateral R1 responses (R1′) in the blink reflex are more frequent in ALS patients than non-ALS and healthy volunteers. • Bilateral R1′ was specific to ALS, observed in a quarter of the ALS group and absent in non-ALS and healthy volunteers. • R1′ in ALS may serve as a diagnostic biomarker though it lacks sensitivity and must be interpreted in the clinical context. This study aimed to compare the frequency of blink reflex’s contralateral R1 responses (R1′) between patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), non-ALS motor deficit patients, and healthy volunteers. A total of 120 participants were prospectively recruited: 40 with ALS, 40 with a non-ALS motor deficit, and 40 healthy volunteers. Blink reflexes were recorded from orbicularis oculi muscles following supraorbital nerve stimulation. R1′ was more frequent in the ALS group (42.5 %) compared to healthy volunteers (12.5 %, p = 0.00588), and compared to non-ALS patients (7.5 %, p = 0.000789). Bilateral R1′ was observed only in ALS patients (22.5 %). No clinically significant difference was found in the latencies or amplitudes of the R1, R2, or R1′ responses among groups. R1′ was more frequent in ALS patients with pseudobulbar affect (71.4 %) compared to those without (36.4 %). The higher frequency of R1′ in ALS highlights its potential role in distinguishing ALS from other motor disorders. Its sensitivity was low, but bilateral R1′ was specific to ALS. The higher frequency of R1′ among ALS patients with pseudobulbar affect potentially reflects corticobulbar neuron degeneration. The R1′, especially when bilateral, could serve as an additional diagnostic biomarker for ALS, although its clinical relevance should be considered within the broader diagnostic context.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".