Spinocerebellar Ataxia Progression Measured with the Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia (PROM-Ataxia) has been validated cross-sectionally but not longitudinally. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to validate PROM-Ataxia as a measure of patient experience of disease over time, examine overall and domain-specific progression, and test convergent validity with other clinical outcome assessments (COAs). METHODS: We derived PROM-Ataxia data from 176 patients with spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, or 10 in the Clinical Research Consortium for the Study of Cerebellar Ataxia at baseline and 1 year. We classified patients' ataxia severity stage ("severity") according to the Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale Functional Staging into mild, moderate, and severe subgroups. Analyses of the entire cohort and by severity subgroup included internal consistency, sensitivity to disease severity, predictive modeling of score changes, correlations with COAs: Brief Ataxia Rating Scale, Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia, Fatigue Severity Scale, Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome scale, EuroQol 5-Dimension, and responsiveness to disease progression. RESULTS: The PROM-Ataxia exhibited high internal consistency and correlated with other COAs. Scores demonstrated sensitivity to disease severity and evolving patient experience. Progression was sigmoidal, with the greatest change in moderate patients. Compared with other COAs, PROM-Ataxia captured the most change. Mental features worsened fastest in mild patients, physical in moderate patients, and activities of daily living in severe patients. CONCLUSION: PROM-Ataxia is more sensitive to change than ataxia COAs, captures the evolution of patients' experience of disease over 1 year, and reveals domain-specific progression. Studies of larger cohorts and different ataxia diagnoses over longer periods may provide insights to further enhance clinical care and research. © 2025 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".