Compound muscle action potentials in the median/accessory nerves reflect disease severity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to assess the severity of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients by comparing relevant nerve conduction study (NCS) indices between the accessory and limb nerves, with the aim of identifying distinctive electrophysiological markers that precede symptoms, to facilitate the early diagnosis of ALS and guide subsequent follow-up measures. A total of 54 patients with ALS were enrolled at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from 2018 to 2020. Patients were consecutively recruited, and their sex, age, time of referral, presenting symptoms, site of onset, modified ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R) score, and electrophysiological findings were retrospectively recorded and analyzed. A total of 54 patients with ALS were included, with a male-to-female ratio of 2.38. The ALSFRS-R scores of the 54 ALS patients ranged from 27 to 46, with mean (± standard deviation [SD]) of 39.26 ± 4.63, with no significant gender difference in scores ( t = 0.438, P = 0.663). In regards to electrophysiological indices, there were 19, 14, 2, 8, and 18 patients with distal motor latency (DML) prolongation and 36, 29, 7, 16, and 6 patients with decreased compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitudes of the median, ulnar, tibial, peroneal, and accessory nerves, respectively. Correlation and regression analysis revealed that ALSFRS-R score was negatively correlated with age ( r = −0.337, P = 0.013) and DML of median nerve ( r = −0.340, P = 0.012), and positively correlated with the CMAP amplitudes of median ( r = 0.549, P <0.001), ulnar ( r = 0.438, P = 0.001), tibial ( r = 0.428, P = 0.001), peroneal ( r = 0.426, P = 0.001), and accessory ( r = 0.326, P = 0.016) nerves. The independent influencing factors of the ALSFRS-R score were the CMAP amplitudes of the median nerve ( B = 1.023, P = 0.002) and the accessory nerve ( B = 0.460, P = 0.0497). CMAP amplitudes in the median and accessory nerves are closely related to the ALSFRS-R score, which can be used as a crucial observational index to objectively reflect the severity of ALS.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".