Communication regarding breathing support options for youth with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilators for home use, manual and mechanically assisted coughing techniques, and the services of in-home respiratory therapists are options for youth with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Evidence supports the use of these modalities, but there seems to be few youth who are receiving these therapies. Is there a knowledge transfer issue? Is there a lack of resources? What is the best way to discuss the issues? What do youth and parents want? OBJECTIVE: To determine practices, attitudes and beliefs regarding the timing and content of client/family communication related to ventilatory support decisions for individuals with DMD. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 19 children's treatment centres in Ontario. The lead clinician responded on behalf of his or her centre. Another questionnaire was given to 11 families who attended a parent support meeting. RESULTS: Respondents from the treatment centres who provide services for youth with DMD indicated that there are resources in terms of personnel and an obligation to provide information about ventilatory support, but provision of information is often late and/or inconsistent. The family respondents wanted more information and they wanted it earlier than they are currently receiving it. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and youth dealing with DMD have many resources at their disposal in Ontario. The evidence is clear that there are long-term health benefits to providing ventilatory support as well as instruction in coughing assistance. Due to the classical nature of disease progression in DMD, information should be provided within reasonable timelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".