Assessment of a disease-specific muscular impairment rating scale in myotonic dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the intra/interrater reliability and the construct validity of the Muscular Impairment Rating Scale (MIRS) in assessing patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). The MIRS is a ordinal five-point rating scale, established in accordance with the clinically recognized distal to proximal progression of the muscular involvement in DM1, based partly on a manual muscle testing (MMT) of 11 muscle groups. METHODS: To assess the reliability of the MIRS, 55 patients with DM1 were examined by three different observers, one of them evaluating each patient twice. Intra- and interobserver reliability of the MIRS was measured using Cohen's weighted kappa. To assess the construct validity of the MIRS, correlations were made with the Functional Status Index (FSI) and eight timed functional tasks. RESULTS: The intraobserver reliability of the MIRS was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.84), and the interobserver reliability was interpreted as a substantial agreement (weighted kappa = 0.77 to 0.79). The correlation coefficients between MMT scores and MIRS grades were all highly significant (r(s) = -0.81 to -0.88, p < 0.001). The FSI showed a significant progressive increase of the total median dependence score in activities of daily living from 0 in MIRS grade 1 to 39 in MIRS grade 5 (p < 0.001). The time needed to perform the eight functional tasks was also found to significantly increase in relation with the progression of the MIRS grades. CONCLUSION: The MIRS is a quick, simple, and reliable measurement of muscular impairment in DM1. The FSI questionnaire and the timed motor activities supported its construct validity. The MIRS is useful to monitor major stages of DM1 progression, to study the natural history of the disease, and to identify homogeneous groups of patients for clinical trials.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".