MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010816977 · doi:10.1002/oti.12

Effects of a hand training programme in five patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1

2005· article· en· W2010816977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Aldehag, Hans Jonsson, Tor Ansved

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational Therapy International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPurdue University
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyOccupational therapyMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWeaknessPsychologyMuscle weaknessAudiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate hand function and self-rated occupational performance before and after specific hand training in five participants with myotonic dystrophy (MD) type 1. MD is the commonest of the muscular dystrophies with adult onset and is associated with muscle weakness, wasting and myotonia. Compensatory techniques and strategies are mostly offered as the only intervention therapy. In the present study, the participants were their own controls using pre- and post-test measures. Each participant was tested at intervals a total of nine times before and nine times after hand training. A hand-held myometer (Microfet2), Grippit, Purdue Pegboard and self-rated myotonia were used as outcome measures. Occupational performance was assessed pre- and post-test using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (COPM) in which the participants rated their own performance and satisfaction in five self-chosen occupational performance areas. The participants performed hand training for a total of three months, three times per week using a specific resistance training programme including Theraputty, a silicone-based putty. Hand function was significantly increased and a positive change in self-rated occupational performance was noted after the training period. This study indicates that hand training has a positive effect on hand function, i.e. motor function and occupational performance. The present results need to be replicated in a controlled study including a larger number of patients and over a longer period of time.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.295
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations51
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational Therapy InternationalSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207