“…For example, studies based on the original EEDC included all categories of ALS (Definite, Probable, Possible, Suspected), n = 12, 3 , 39 , 40 , 42–45 , 48 , 51 , 53 , 66 or excluded cases who, during follow-up, remained suspected ALS ( n = 4) 4,37,38,54 or suspected/possible ALS ( n = 2) 6 , 59 . Conversely, most papers that used the revised version of EEDC included all types of ALS (Definite, Probable, Probable laboratory supported, Possible) ( n = 13), 8–14 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 57 , 64 and only one excluded cases with possible ALS during follow-up ( n = 1) 121 . However, when looking at standardized rates (i.e when controlling for age and sex distribution of the underlying population), ALS heterogeneity was not explained by the diagnosis ( P = 0.51).…”