MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415224678 · doi:10.1016/j.msard.2025.106799

The influence of manual dexterity on processing speed assessment in multiple sclerosis: A comparison of the PST and oral SDMT

2025· article· en· W4415224678 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah A. Morrow, Marina R. Everest, David Beniameen, Heather Rosehart

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersBiogen IdecBiogen
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisTest (biology)CohortExpanded Disability Status ScaleCognitionCorrelation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive impairment (CI) is a common symptom in persons with Multiple Sclerosis (PwMS), specifically information processing speed (IPS) impairment. The Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), which requires in-person testing, is a well-established measure for screening for IPS and CI in clinic settings. The Processing Speed Test (PST), a self-administered iPad-based tool, has been proposed as an alternative. Preliminary studies suggest that the PST can effectively differentiate PwMS from healthy controls and correlates with MRI results. This study aims to investigate if the relationship between the PST and oral SDMT is affected by manual dexterity or level of disability. A cohort of 100 PwMS completed both the PST and SDMT, as well the 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). The strong positive correlation found between the PST and SDMT was maintained across all subgroups based on 9HPT performance and EDSS functional system scores. Our findings indicate that the PST is comparable to the SDMT for PwMS regardless of manual dexterity. This validates PST as a time-efficient, self-administered alternative that can reduce clinical burden in MS care.

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)0.019
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
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis and Related DisordersSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207