The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The natural history of primary lateral sclerosis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the syndrome of primary lateral sclerosis (PLS) and disorders that contain features of both ALS and PLS, to determine the time beyond which PLS is less likely to become ALS clinically, and to determine the outcome of people with PLS and those who develop lower motor neuron (LMN) signs. METHODS: The authors reviewed the records of all 39 patients initially diagnosed with PLS in 1984 to 2004. Diagnostic subgroups were defined based on clinical features. The authors used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate the time to diagnosis, linear regression analyses to assess function, and a Cox proportional hazard model to assess survival in subgroups. RESULTS: Of the 39 patients, 29 had only upper motor neuron (UMN) signs on initial evaluation. Thirteen of the 29 were later classified as having UMN-dominant ALS (UMN-D) because they acquired evidence of denervation by EMG (3.17 years) or examination (3.67 years). Sixteen of the 29 patients, classified as clinically pure PLS, retained only UMN signs and a normal EMG (mean follow-up 8.7 years). Ten patients who met criteria for ALS at the initial visit were used as controls. The UMN-dominant ALS group had lower functional scores (p = 0.033) than the PLS group, and similar scores to those with ALS. Survival was longer in both the PLS group (p = 0.027) and the UMN-D group (p = 0.067) than the ALS group. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically pure PLS can be defined by isolated UMN signs 4 years after symptom onset, and is a syndrome of slow progression with high levels of function. Prior to the fourth year, the diagnosis of PLS cannot be made with certainty because many patients develop LMN signs. UMN-dominant ALS, defined by predominantly UMN disease with minor LMN signs, has disability similar to ALS, but slower progression.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cedarbaum, J. M., Stambler, N., Malta, E., Fuller, C., Hilt, D., Thurmond, B., & Nakanishi, A. (1999) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/s0022-510x(99)00210-5 · Cited by 3,307
Cited by
Kiernan, M. C., Vucic, S., Cheah, B. C., Turner, M. R., Eisen, A., Hardiman, O., Burrell, J. R., & Zoing, M. C. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61156-7 · Cited by 2,603
The epidemiology of ALS: a conspiracy of genes, environment and time
Al-Chalabi, A., & Hardiman, O. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2013.203 · Cited by 894
Mitchell, J., & Borasio, G. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60944-1 · Cited by 561
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: moving towards a new classification system
Al-Chalabi, A., Hardiman, O., Kiernan, M. C., Chiò, A., Rix-Brooks, B., & van den Berg, L. H. (2016) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(16)30199-5 · Cited by 390
Tartaglia, M. C., Rowe, A., Findlater, K., Orange, J. B., Grace, G., & Strong, M. J. (2007) · Archives of Neurology · doi:10.1001/archneur.64.2.232 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Gordon, P. H., Cheng, B., Katz, I. B., Pinto, M., Hays, A. P., Mitsumoto, H., & Rowland, L. P.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 2006-03-14
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 647-653
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2094469765
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The natural history of primary lateral sclerosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/01.wnl.0000200962.94777.71
- The paper
- Gordon, P. H., Cheng, B., Katz, I. B., Pinto, M., Hays, A. P., Mitsumoto, H., & Rowland, L. P. (2006). The natural history of primary lateral sclerosis. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000200962.94777.71
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.