MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037893753 · doi:10.1177/000992280204100206

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy—Parental Perceptions

2002· article· en· W2037893753 on OpenAlexaff
Janice Bothwell, Joseph M. Dooley, Kevin Gordon, A. MacAuley, P. R. Camfield, Judith MacSween

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pediatrics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuchenne muscular dystrophyQuality of life (healthcare)AngerSocial isolationDepression (economics)PerceptionMental healthMuscular dystrophyGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatryNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality of life and availability of services are important for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and their families. Families attending our neuromuscular clinic completed a questionnaire on parental perception regarding the importance of services, health issues, and quality of life issues both "now" and "in the future." Eighty-nine percent of the families (31/35) completed questionnaires. Services and health issues related to prolonging ambulation were most important, especially for the parents of younger boys. Mental health issues such as social isolation, anger, and depression were very important, particularly for the families of older boys and were anticipated to be more important in the future. Pediatricians should be aware of both the immediate needs of families to meet the physical and emotional challenges of DMD and the increasing requirement to address the social needs of these patients and their families as the boys become older.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations64
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical PediatricsSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207