ArticleJournal of neurology2026
What do ALS motor phenotypes measure? A population-based decomposition of their prognostic dimensions.
Article in Journal of neurology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ALS-OPM 3.3 classification stratifies incident ALS through three axes: onset region (O), propagation time (P) and motor-neuron pattern (M). We assessed whether OPM 3.3 improves prognostic discrimination over established classifications and characterised how it decomposes their prognostic signal in a population-based cohort.
methodsIn the prospective Piedmont and Aosta Valley ALS Register (2000-2022), patients were classified on the three axes; M was operationalised as M_3class (M0 balanced, M1d UMN-predominant, M2d LMN-predominant), with the PLS-spectrum M1p analysed separately. Outcome was survival (death or tracheostomy) from onset. Multivariable Cox models (O, P1(n), M_3class, age, sex) underwent bootstrap optimism-correction and fivefold cross-validation, and were compared against alternative taxonomies and clinical staging systems.
resultsAmongst 2,738 non-PLS patients (2,561 events, 93.5%), median survival differed across M classes (M0 27.0, M2d 36.0, M1d 41.9 months). OPM 3.3 outperformed the bulbar/spinal dichotomy but matched the classical phenotype (optimism-corrected C-index 0.703, 95% CI 0.685-0.719 vs 0.701). In the arm-proximal cell (95.7% M2d), the O2p protective effect vanished after M adjustment (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.24), whilst M2d retained HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.95), showing prognosis reflects motor-neuron pattern, not anatomy. Adding King's, Milano-Torino (MiToS), or Fine'til 9 (FT9) clinical staging further improved discrimination.
conclusionsOPM 3.3 did not improve discrimination over established phenotypes but decomposed their prognostic signal into independently interpretable dimensions. Favourable prognosis of arm-proximal/flail-arm onset reflects the underlying LMN-predominant phenotype, not onset site. The motor-neuron axis is robust to the treatment of the propagation axis and independent of clinical staging.
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.