ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Memory function in autoimmune encephalitis: a cross-sectional prospective study utilising multiple memory paradigms.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAutoimmune encephalitis (AE) is often associated with clinically significant memory impairment. This study aimed to evaluate memory in a cross-sectional prospective AE cohort using multiple memory paradigms.
methods52 patients (50% seropositive) meeting Graus criteria for possible AE were prospectively recruited between October 2019 and August 202. A comprehensive examination of memory was performed, including tests of supraspan verbal memory (list learning), logicosemantic memory (story learning), figural memory (learning of geometric designs), and verbal associative learning (verbal paired associates). Memory scores were compared to demographically adjusted normative data. Pattern analysis was conducted to assist in the identification of patterns in memory performances.
resultsMean memory scores were not significantly below the normative mean. At an individual patient level, over 20% of the cohort exhibited impaired delayed figural memory, supraspan verbal memory learning and recall. Observed performances were significantly below expected performance for story learning (p = 0.017) and recall (p = 0.003), figural recall (p < 0.0001), initial acquisition (p < 0.001) and final acquisition of a list (p < 0.001) and all delayed recall measures of the list (p < 0.00001). 54.76% of patients exhibited intact psychometrics, and 16 distinct patterns of impairment emerged, indicating variability in memory outcomes. DISCUSSION: While statistical evidence for memory impairment did not emerge at an aggregate level, a proportion of patients present with evidence of abnormal memory performance on psychometrics. Variability in impaired memory measures argues for an individualised patient-focused approach to clinical assessment in AE. Future research should validate these findings with a larger sample size and explore the relationships between memory profiles and other cognitive functions.
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.