Mucopolysaccharidosis I: Management and Treatment Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disease management for mucopolysaccharidosis type I has been inconsistent because of disease rarity (approximately 1 case per 100,000 live births), phenotypic heterogeneity, and limited therapeutic options. The availability of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and the recent introduction of enzyme replacement therapy for mucopolysaccharidosis I necessitate the establishment of system-specific management guidelines for this condition. METHODS: Twelve international experts on mucopolysaccharidosis I met in January 2003 to draft management and treatment guidelines for mucopolysaccharidosis I. Initial guidelines were revised and updated in 2008, on the basis of additional clinical data and therapeutic advances. Recommendations are based on our extensive clinical experience and a review of the literature. RESULTS: All patients with mucopolysaccharidosis I should receive a comprehensive baseline evaluation, including neurologic, ophthalmologic, auditory, cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal assessments, and should be monitored every 6 to 12 months with individualized specialty assessments, to monitor disease progression and effects of intervention. Patients are best treated by a multidisciplinary team. Treatments consist of palliative/supportive care, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and enzyme replacement therapy. The patient's age (>2 years or < or =2 years), predicted phenotype, and developmental quotient help define the risk/benefit profile for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (higher risk but can preserve central nervous system function) versus enzyme replacement therapy (low risk but cannot cross the blood-brain barrier). CONCLUSION: We anticipate that provision of a standard of care for the treatment of patients with mucopolysaccharidosis I will optimize clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".