ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Working Memory Phenotypes in Early Multiple Sclerosis: Appraisal of Phenotype Frequency, Progression and Test Sensitivity.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selective GPR17 antagonism enhances structural and functional recovery in animal models of demyelination.PloS one · 2026Article
- Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: from phenomenology to neurobiological mechanisms.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2024Review
- Morphosyntactic Abilities and Cognitive Performance in Multiple Sclerosis.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Visuo-Cognitive Phenotypes in Early Multiple Sclerosis: A Multisystem Model of Visual Processing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Working memory (WM) impairments are common and debilitating symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), often emerging early in the disease. Predominantly, WM impairments are considered in a binary manner, with patients considered either impaired or not based on a single test. However, WM is comprised of different activated subcomponents depending upon the type of information (auditory, visual) and integration requirements. As such, unique WM impairment phenotypes occur. We aimed to determine the most frequent WM phenotypes in early MS, how they progress and which WM test(s) provide the best measure of WM impairment. A total of 88 participants (63 early relapsing-remitting MS: RRMS, 25 healthy controls) completed five WM tests (visual-spatial, auditory, episodic, executive) as well as the symbol digit modalities test as a measure of processing speed. RRMS patients were followed-up for two years. Factors affecting WM (age/gender/intelligence/mood) and MS factors (disease duration/disability) were also evaluated. Some 61.9% of RRMS patients were impaired on at least one WM subcomponent. The most subcomponents impaired were visual,-spatial and auditory WM. The most common WM phenotypes were; (1) visual-spatial sketchpad + episodic buffer + phonological loop + central executive, (2) visual-spatial sketchpad + central executive. The test of visual-spatial WM provided the best diagnostic accuracy for detecting WM impairment and progression. The SDMT did not achieve diagnostic accuracy greater than chance. Although this may be unsurprising, given that the SDMT is a measure of cognitive processing speed in MS, this does highlight the limitation of the SDMT as a general screening tool for cognitive impairment in early MS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.