ArticleJournal of neurology2024
How to detect affect recognition alterations in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Article in Journal of neurology, 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.
- Driving with Motor Neuron Disease: Disease-Specific Considerations, Multi-Domain Assessments and Support Strategies.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- The spectrum of behavioral disorders in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: current view.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2025Review
- A common marker of affect recognition dysfunction in the FTD spectrum of disorders.European 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo define the clinical usability of an affect recognition (AR) battery-the Comprehensive Affect Testing System (CATS)-in an Italian sample of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
methods96 ALS patients and 116 healthy controls underwent a neuropsychological assessment including the AR subtests of the abbreviated version of the CATS (CATS-A). CATS-A AR subtests and their global score (CATS-A AR Quotient, ARQ) were assessed for their factorial, convergent, and divergent validity. The diagnostic accuracy of each CATS-A AR measure in discriminating ALS patients with cognitive impairment from cognitively normal controls and patients was tested via receiver-operating characteristics analyses. Optimal cut-offs were identified for CATS-A AR measures yielding an acceptable AUC value (≥ .70). The ability of CATS-A ARQ to discriminate between different ALS cognitive phenotypes was also tested. Gray-matter (GM) volumes of controls, ALS with normal (ALS-nARQ), and impaired ARQ score (ALS-iARQ) were compared using ANCOVA models.
resultsCATS-A AR subtests and ARQ proved to have moderate-to-strong convergent and divergent validity. Almost all considered CATS-A measures reached acceptable accuracy and diagnostic power (AUC range = .79-.83). ARQ showed to be the best diagnostic measure (sensitivity = .80; specificity = .75) and discriminated between different ALS cognitive phenotypes. Compared to ALS-nARQ, ALS-iARQ patients showed reduced GM volumes in the right anterior cingulate, right middle frontal, left inferior temporal, and superior occipital regions.
conclusionsThe AR subtests of the CATS-A, and in particular the CATS-A ARQ, are sound measures of AR in ALS. AR deficits may be a valid marker of frontotemporal involvement in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39287680What 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.