MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119608779 · doi:10.1001/archneur.61.12.1938

Musculoskeletal Pain in Patients With Myotonic Dystrophy Type 2

2004· article· en· W2119608779 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annette George, Christiane Schneider‐Gold, Sandra S. Zier, Karlheinz Reiners, Claudia Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Neurology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyotonic dystrophyPhysical therapyOutpatient clinicPalpationInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myotonic dystrophy type 2/proximal myotonic myopathy (DM2/PROMM) is an autosomal dominant multisystem disorder. Musculoskeletal pain is one of its frequent symptoms but also occurs in other chronic noninflammatory muscle disorders (OMD). OBJECTIVES: To characterize the phenotype of DM2/PROMM-associated musculoskeletal pain and to test whether it shows features distinct from OMD. SETTING: Outpatient clinic for patients with neuromuscular disorders, university hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients with DM2/PROMM (12 women and 12 men; median age, 57 years) and 24 age- and sex-matched patients with OMD consecutively recruited during a 3-year period were examined for musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Standardized pain assessment; McGill Pain Questionnaire; depression score; and quantification of pain thresholds to blunt pressure on limb muscles with analgometer. RESULTS: Unlike patients with OMD who have musculoskeletal pain, patients with DM2/PROMM distinguished a wide spectrum of coexisting pain types. The major pain type in patients with DM2/PROMM was exercise-related, temperature-modulated, and palpation-induced, whereas, cramps were rare. In 8 of the patients with DM2/PROMM and in 3 of the patients with OMD, musculoskeletal pain was the most disabling symptom. CONCLUSION: Besides many similarities, DM2/PROMM-associated musculoskeletal pain shows features distinct from OMD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations72
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of NeurologySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207