ArticleScientific reports2024
A taxonomy of cognitive phenotypes in Multiple Sclerosis: a 1-year longitudinal study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning methods evaluation for identification of cognitive phenotypes in multiple sclerosis and their MRI correlates.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Review
- Cognitive impairment, mood, and fatigue in various multiple sclerosis subtypes: a one-year follow-up study.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As meaningful measure of cognitive impairment (CI), cognitive phenotypes provide an avenue for symptom management and individualized rehabilitation. Since CI is highly variable in severity and progression, monitoring cognitive phenotypes over time may be useful to identify trajectory of cognitive decline in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Based on cognitive and mood information from patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-assessed outcomes (CAOs), four cognitive subgroups of people with MS (PwMS) were identified: phenotype 1 (44.5%) showed a preserved cognitive profile; phenotype 2 (22.8%) had a mild-cognitive impairment profile with attention difficulties; phenotype 3 (24.3%) included people with marked difficulties in visuo-executive, attention, language, memory and information processing speed; lastly, phenotype 4 (8.4%) grouped individuals with a multi-domain impairment profile (visuo-executive, attention, language, memory, orientation, information processing speed and mood disorders). Although some fluctuations occurred considering the rate of impairment, cognitive phenotypes did not substantially vary at follow up in terms of type and number of impairments, suggesting that 1 year is a relatively brief temporal window to observe considerable changes. Our results corroborate that investigating cognitive phenotypes and their stability over time would provide valuable information regarding CI and, in addition, increase clinical importance of PROs and CAOs and their uptake in decision-making and individualized treatment planning for PwMS.
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.