ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2025
The Cerebellar Cognitive Affective/Schmahmann Syndrome Scale: Updates and Insights.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impaired Glur2 palmitoylation in cerebellar Purkinje cells of a Friedreich ataxia mouse model.Experimental neurology · 2026Article
- Neuropathology of Friedreich ataxia and its links to metabolic pathways.Neurodegenerative disease management · 2026Review
- The CCAS-Scale in Chiari Malformation Type I: A Cerebellar-Focused Cognitive Assessment with Clinical Utility.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Cerebellar clinical syndromes: the triad and rating scales.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Psychomotor and non-motor correlates of cognition in spinocerebellar ataxias Types 1, 2, 3, and 6.Brain communications · 2025Article
- Neurocognition, cerebellar functions and psychiatric features in spinocerebellar ataxia type 34: a case series.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cerebellar Cognitive Affective / Schmahmann Syndrome scale (CCAS-S) detects cognitive and neuropsychiatric changes in cerebellar disease (CD). It has good sensitivity and specificity, but a false positive rate ~ 5%. We determined that healthy controls (HC) fail digit span tasks (DS) when presented with one repetition opportunity. We tested the hypothesis that providing participants a second attempt at DS would improve performance and decrease false positive rate. We also evaluated influence of age and education on CCAS-S scores. We administered the CCAS-S to 50 CD and 85 HC, providing a second attempt at forward / reverse DS for each failed number sequence, using either the same numbers, or a different set of numbers of the same length. Performance with same vs different digits was identical. After second DS attempt, raw score increased: HC, 106.1 ± 9.4 to 106.8 ± 9.2; CD, 89.2 ± 15.5 to 90.6 ± 15.8, and failed domains decreased: HC, 0.67 ± 0.89 to 0.4 ± 0.73; CD, 2.62 ± 1.9 to 2.24 ± 1.9. False positive definite CCAS (≥ 3 failed domains) decreased in HC, 4.7% to 1.2%. In CD, definite CCAS remained high, 48% to 38%. Some older HC failed ≥ 3 domains. Education (all ≥ 12 years) did not impact performance in HC; CD with more education failed fewer domains. False positive definite CCAS-S was reduced to 1.2% by second attempt at forward and backward DS. The CCAS-S detected incipient cognitive impairment in older individuals. Education effects were modest, but cohorts with education ≤ 11 years need further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40699449What 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.