ArticleNeurology and therapy2026
ECAS-Based Neuropsychological Phenotyping in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Retrospective Study Comparing Different Algorithms.
Article in Neurology and therapy, 2026. 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare different algorithms based on the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS) to classify patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) according to their neuropsychological phenotype to identify possible discrepancies among these systems.
methodsECAS-Cognitive and -Carer Interview (ECAS-C/-CI) scores of N = 901 patients with ALS without a formal diagnosis of dementia were retrospectively retrieved. Patients were classified, pursuant to Strong et al.'s criteria, as cognitively and behaviourally normal (ALScbn), cognitively and/or behaviourally impaired (ALSci/bi/cbi), or Possible ALS-FTD, according the following ECAS-based algorithms: (1) Abrahams', solely addressing ECAS-C total and ALS-Specific subtotals; (2) Poletti et al.'s, addressing single task-level ECAS-C scores; (3) "Subscale", addressing ECAS-C subscales (i.e., Language, Executive, Fluency, Memory and Visuospatial). All algorithms relied on single-item-level ECAS-CI scores for behavioural classifications.
resultsWhilst agreement rates among these classifications were moderate to high (84-86%; Cohen's k = 0.78-0.81), and some discrepancies emerged: (1) "ALScbn-to-ALSci" and "ALSci-to-ALScbn" re-classifications occurred across the three comparisons, ranging from ~ 11% to ~ 24%; (2) the most classificatory disagreements (~ 43%) occurred for the ALScbi category when comparing single task-level (Poletti) to total-level (Abrahams) algorithms, with patients being re-classified as either ALSbi or Possible ALS-FTD; (3) ~ 24% of Abraham's Possible ALS-FTD cases were re-classified as either ALScbi or ALSbi by the Subscale approach.
conclusionsDifferent ECAS-based algorithms for deriving Strong's phenotypes might yield slight discrepancies that could under- or overestimate a given classification.
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.