MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021978892 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000000074

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

2014· article· en· W2021978892 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcello Villanova, B. Brancalion, Anokhi Mehta

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuchenne muscular dystrophyVital capacityTracheotomyHypoventilationMuscular dystrophyRespiratory systemAnesthesiaInternal medicineLungDiffusing capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: American, Japanese, and Canadian centers have demonstrated that noninvasive intermittent positive pressure ventilatory support (NVS) can be used continuously and in the long-term by people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy as a definitive alternative to tracheostomy mechanical ventilation. The aim of this study was to report this for the first time in Europe. DESIGN: In this study, more than 300 patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy were followed. End-tidal carbon dioxide, oxyhemoglobin saturation, and vital capacity were measured at each visit. Of the 300 patients, 79 used NVS for 8 hrs or more per day and 20 of these became continuously dependent on NVS. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients have continuously depended on NVS for survival, for a total of 336 patient-years, up to 16 yrs in one case. Nocturnal NVS was begun for symptomatic hypoventilation when the vital capacity had decreased to a mean of 831 ± 173 ml, and continuous dependence on NVS was necessary when the vital capacity had decreased below 297 ± 113 ml. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive respiratory management can prolong survival without resorting to tracheotomy and without hospitalization.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0070.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207