MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069012617 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2004.043455

Fatigue and daytime sleepiness rating scales in myotonic dystrophy: a study of reliability

2005· article· en· W2069012617 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Laberge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsCégep de Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyRating scaleDaytimeExcessive daytime sleepinessReliability (semiconductor)PsychologyEpworth Sleepiness ScaleAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryPolysomnographyInternal medicineElectroencephalographySleep disorderPhysicsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Daytime Sleepiness Scale (DSS), Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS), and Krupp's Fatigue Severity Scale (KFSS) in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). METHODS: In total, 27 patients with DM1 were administered the questionnaires on two occasions, with a 2 week interval. Internal consistency and test retest reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Cronbach's alpha, Cohen's kappa, and Goodman-Kruskal's gamma coefficients. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the CFS and KFSS were adequate (alpha > 0.70) but that of the ESS was weak (alpha = 0.24). Both daytime sleepiness and fatigue rating scales showed significant test retest reliability. Test retest reliability for individual items revealed inconsistencies for some ESS and CFS items. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of the CFS, DSS, and KFSS was high, allowing their use for individual patients with DM1, but that of the ESS was lower, rendering its current usage in DM1 questionable. Fatigue rating scales such as the KFSS, which are based on the behavioural consequences of fatigue, may constitute a more accurate and comprehensive measure of fatigue severity in the DM1 population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207