ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2020
Recessive Ataxia Differential Diagnosis Algorithm (RADIAL) Versus Specific Niemann-Pick Type C Suspicion Indices: A Retrospective Algorithm Comparison.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 2025 Consensus Clinical Management Guidelines for Niemann-Pick Disease Type C.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early diagnosis of Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is crucial to slow the progression of neurological manifestations. Different tools were developed to aid diagnosis of NPC, but to date, no study has compared their performance. We aimed to compare the RADIAL algorithm, intended for the differential diagnosis of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias (ARCAs) and NPC-specific suspicion indices (SIs). This study was a retrospective analysis of data from 834 patients with molecularly confirmed ARCAs, including 57 NPC cases (RADIAL cohort). We aimed to compare the algorithm performance of RADIAL (Top 1 and Top 3) with that of four SIs (Original, Refined, 2/3 and 2/7) in discriminating NPC cases and non-NPC cases. We also identified ARCAs closely related to NPC as those with low specificity to detect non-NPC cases and described differential and overlapping features with NPC. Overall, excellent sensitivity and specificity (> 0.90) were achieved with both RADIAL and SI tools for NPC cases. The highest sensitivity was attained with the 2/7 SI, Refined SI and Top 3 RADIAL algorithms. Top 1 and Top 3 RADIAL were the most specific tools, followed by the Original SI. The individual comparison of each ARCA revealed that Wilson disease, PLA2G6-associated neurodegeneration, and hypomyelinating leukodystrophy (POLR3A) are frequent NPC false positives (PLA2G6 and POL3A only with the SIs). Both RADIAL and SI diagnostic approaches showed strong discriminatory potential and may be useful screening tools in different clinical contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31933160What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.