MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408161634 · doi:10.1002/mds.30158

Spinocerebellar Ataxia Progression Measured with the Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia

2025· article· en· W4408161634 on OpenAlexaff
Gilbert L’Italien, Susan Perlman, Liana S. Rosenthal, Sheng‐Han Kuo, Tetsuo Ashizawa, Theresa Zesiewicz, Cameron Dietiker, Puneet Opal, Antoine Duquette, George Wilmot, Vikram G. Shakkottai, Christopher M. Gómez, Sharan R. Srinivasan, Henry L. Paulson, Michael D. Geschwind, Sandie Worley, Chiadi U. Onyike, Andrew Billnitzer, Amy Ferng, Kristen L. Matulis, Marie Y. Davis, S. H. Subramony, Anoopum S. Gupta, Christopher D. Stephen, Jeremy D. Schmahmann

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersMINDlink FoundationNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeOnce Upon A Time FoundationNational Ataxia Foundation
KeywordsSpinocerebellar ataxiaAtaxiaMedicineNeurological disorderCentral nervous system diseaseClinical neurologyMeasure (data warehouse)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychiatryComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207