Consensus Statement on Standard of Care for Congenital Muscular Dystrophies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congenital muscular dystrophies are a group of rare neuromuscular disorders with a wide spectrum of clinical phenotypes. Recent advances in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of congenital muscular dystrophy have enabled better diagnosis. However, medical care for patients with congenital muscular dystrophy remains very diverse. Advances in many areas of medical technology have not been adopted in clinical practice. The International Standard of Care Committee for Congenital Muscular Dystrophy was established to identify current care issues, review literature for evidence-based practice, and achieve consensus on care recommendations in 7 areas: diagnosis, neurology, pulmonology, orthopedics/rehabilitation, gastroenterology/ nutrition/speech/oral care, cardiology, and palliative care. To achieve consensus on the care recommendations, 2 separate online surveys were conducted to poll opinions from experts in the field and from congenital muscular dystrophy families. The final consensus was achieved in a 3-day workshop conducted in Brussels, Belgium, in November 2009. This consensus statement describes the care recommendations from this committee.
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 | 0.178 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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.
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".