MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: Current Knowledge, Treatment, and Future Prospects

2002· review· en· W2078340108 on OpenAlexaff
W. Douglas Biggar, Henry J. Klamut, Paula C. Demacio, Daniel Stevens, Peter N. Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDystrophinDuchenne muscular dystrophyMedicineMuscular dystrophymdx mouseBioinformaticsGermlineMinigeneGeneSomatic cellGeneticsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cloning of the dystrophin gene has led to major advances in the understanding of the molecular genetic basis of Duchenne, Becker, and other muscular dystrophies associated with mutations in genes encoding members of the dystrophin-associated glycoprotein complex. The recent introduction of pharmaceutical agents such as prednisone has shown great promise in delaying the progression of Duchenne muscular dystrophy but there remains a need to develop more long-term therapeutic interventions. Knowledge of the nature of the dystrophin gene and the glycoprotein complex has led many researchers to think that somatic gene replacement represents the most promising approach to treatment. The potential use of this strategy has been shown in the mdx mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, where germ line gene transfer of either a full-length or a smaller Becker-type dystrophin minigene prevents necrosis and restores normal muscle function.

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)0.001
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations73
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207