MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967799655 · doi:10.2340/16501977-0091

Life habits in myotonic dystrophy type 1

2007· article· en· W1967799655 on OpenAlexafffund
Cynthia Gagnon, Jean Mathieu, Luc Noreau

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Dermato Venereologica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsCégep de Jonquière
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMuscular Dystrophy Canada
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyRecreationPhenotypeGerontologyPsychologyLife satisfactionActivities of daily livingYoung adultHabitMedicinePhysical therapyBiologyInternal medicineGeneticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare life habits between individuals with adult and mild phenotypes of myotonic dystrophy; identify life habit dimensions in which accomplishment is compromised; and describe satisfaction related to life habits. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: A random sample of 200 subjects with myotonic dystrophy (42 mild phenotypes, 158 adult phenotypes). MEASUREMENT: The Assessment of Life Habits (LIFE-H), a questionnaire assessing self-perceived life habits (activities and participation as described in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)). RESULTS: Participants with the adult phenotype demonstrated significantly lower participation levels than those with the mild phenotype on 8 out of the 11 categories of the LIFE-H. Lower levels of accomplishment were reported in Mobility, Housing, Fitness, Nutrition, Personal Care, Employment, Recreation, and Community Life categories among the adult phenotype. The Recreation category was the most affected, with 4 out of 7 items revealing compromised accomplishment among 22-27% of individuals. The lowest satisfaction score was observed in the Employment and Recreation categories. In all categories, individuals with the adult phenotype displayed significantly lower satisfaction levels than those with the mild phenotype. CONCLUSION: This study helped to establish a clearer distinction between activities and participation levels of individuals with the mild phenotype and those with the adult phenotype and supported tailored rehabilitation and community services to improve accomplishment of life habits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Dermato VenereologicaSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207