ReviewBrain sciences2024
Neurophysiologic Innovations in ALS: Enhancing Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment Evaluation.
Review in Brain sciences, 2024. 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.
- Beyond Biomarkers: Reclaiming the Central Role of Clinical Neurophysiology in Neuromuscular Disorders.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Quantifying motor unit loss prior to functional impairment in muscles affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Article
- Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and degenerative cervical myelopathy: phenotype-based diagnostic pitfalls, investigative mismatch, and practical clinical reasoning.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Blueprint of Collapse: Precision Biomarkers, Molecular Cascades, and the Engineered Decline of Fast-Progressing ALS.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive disease of both upper motor neurons (UMNs) and lower motor neurons (LMNs) leading invariably to decline in motor function. The clinical exam is foundational to the diagnosis of the disease, and ordinal severity scales are used to track its progression. However, the lack of objective biomarkers of disease classification and progression delay clinical trial enrollment, muddle inclusion criteria, and limit accurate assessment of drug efficacy. Ultimately, biomarker evidence of therapeutic target engagement will support, and perhaps supplant, more traditional clinical trial outcome measures. Electrophysiology tools including nerve conduction study and electromyography (EMG) have already been established as diagnostic biomarkers of LMN degeneration in ALS. Additional understanding of the motor manifestations of disease is provided by motor unit number estimation, electrical impedance myography, and single-fiber EMG techniques. Dysfunction of UMN and non-motor brain areas is being increasingly assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation, high-density electroencephalography, and magnetoencephalography; less common autonomic and sensory nervous system dysfunction in ALS can also be characterized. Although most of these techniques are used to explore the underlying disease mechanisms of ALS in research settings, they have the potential on a broader scale to noninvasively identify disease subtypes, predict progression rates, and assess physiologic engagement of experimental therapies.
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.