ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2024
Cranial Nerve Thinning Distinguishes RFC1-Related Disorder from Other Late-Onset Ataxias.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal Evaluation of Ataxia and Brain Structural Changes in RFC1-Related Disorder.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025Article
- Facial Nerve Thinning Correlates With Motor Function in Adults With Spinal Muscular Atrophy.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRFC1-related disorder (RFC1/CANVAS) shares clinical features with other late-onset ataxias, such as spinocerebellar ataxias (SCA) and multiple system atrophy cerebellar type (MSA-C). Thinning of cranial nerves V (CNV) and VIII (CNVIII) has been reported in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of RFC1/CANVAS, but its specificity remains unclear.
objectivesTo assess the usefulness of CNV and CNVIII thinning to differentiate RFC1/CANVAS from SCA and MSA-C.
methodsSeventeen individuals with RFC1/CANVAS, 57 with SCA (types 2, 3 and 6), 11 with MSA-C and 15 healthy controls were enrolled. The Balanced Fast Field Echo sequence was used for assessment of cranial nerves. Images were reviewed by a neuroradiologist, who classified these nerves as atrophic or normal, and subsequently the CNV was segmented manually by an experienced neurologist. Both assessments were blinded to patient and clinical data. Non-parametric tests were used to assess between-group comparisons.
resultsAtrophy of CNV and CNVIII, both alone and in combination, was significantly more frequent in the RFC1/CANVAS group than in healthy controls and all other ataxia groups. Atrophy of CNV had the highest sensitivity (82%) and combined CNV and CNVIII atrophy had the best specificity (92%) for diagnosing RFC1/CANVAS. In the quantitative analyses, CNV was significantly thinner in the RFC1/CANVAS group relative to all other groups. The cutoff CNV diameter that best identified RFC1/CANVAS was ≤2.2 mm (AUC = 0.91; sensitivity 88.2%, specificity 95.6%).
conclusionMRI evaluation of CNV and CNVIII using a dedicated sequence is an easy-to-use tool that helps to distinguish RFC1/CANVAS from SCA and MSA-C.
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.