Table_1_Are Cognitive Changes in Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias Restricted to Complicated Forms?.DOCX
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Background: Little is known about the cognitive profile of Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias (HSP), where most scientific attention has been given to motor features related to corticospinal tract degeneration.</p><p>Objectives: We aimed to perform a broad characterization of the cognitive functions of patients with pure and complicated HSP as well as to determine the frequency of abnormal cognitive performances in the studied subtypes.</p><p>Methods: A two-center cross-sectional case-control study was performed. All individuals underwent cognitive assessment through screening tests (Mini Mental State Examination—MEEM and Montreal Cognitive Assessment—MOCA) and tests to assess specific cognitive functions (Verbal fluency with phonological restriction—FAS; Verbal categorical fluency—FAS-cat and Rey's Verbal Auditory Learning Test -RAVLT).</p><p>Results: Fifty four patients with genetically confirmed HSP diagnosis, 36 with spastic paraplegia type 4 (SPG4), 5 SPG11, 4 SPG5, 4 cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX), 3 SPG7 and 2 SPG3A, and 10 healthy, unrelated control subjects, with similar age, sex, and education participated in the study. SPG4 patients had worse performances in MOCA, FAS, FAS-cat, and RAVLT when compared to controls. Most SPG4 patients presented cognitive changes not compatible with dementia, performing poorly in memory, attention and executive functions. SPG5 patients scored lower in executive functions and memory, and SPG7 patients performed poorly on memory tasks. All evaluated cognitive functions were markedly altered in CTX and SPG11 patients.</p><p>Conclusions: Cognitive abnormalities are frequent in HSP, being more severe in complicated forms. However, cognitive impairments of pure HSPs might impact patients' lives, decreasing families' socioeconomic status and contributing to the overall disease burden.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.358 | 0.082 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".