MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261933367 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146824

Clinical Guidelines for Management of Bone Health in Rett Syndrome Based on Expert Consensus and Available Evidence

2016· review· en· W2261933367 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins UniversityNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of HealthAriel UniversityTexas Children's HospitalUniversità degli Studi di SalernoCardiff UniversityUniversität WienInternational Rett Syndrome FoundationMedizinische Universität WienKarolinska InstitutetInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIJohns Hopkins UniversityRigshospitaletAgricultural Research ServiceCivitan InternationalUniversity of California, San DiegoU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsRett syndromeMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionOsteoporosisPhysical therapyBone healthPediatricsBone mineralIntensive care medicinePathologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We developed clinical guidelines for the management of bone health in Rett syndrome through evidence review and the consensus of an expert panel of clinicians. METHODS: An initial guidelines draft was created which included statements based upon literature review and 11 open-ended questions where literature was lacking. The international expert panel reviewed the draft online using a 2-stage Delphi process to reach consensus agreement. Items describe the clinical assessment of bone health, bone mineral density assessment and technique, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: Agreement was reached on 39 statements which were formulated from 41 statements and 11 questions. When assessing bone health in Rett syndrome a comprehensive assessment of fracture history, mutation type, prescribed medication, pubertal development, mobility level, dietary intake and biochemical bone markers is recommended. A baseline densitometry assessment should be performed with accommodations made for size, with the frequency of surveillance determined according to individual risk. Lateral spine x-rays are also suggested. Increasing physical activity and initiating calcium and vitamin D supplementation when low are the first approaches to optimizing bone health in Rett syndrome. If individuals with Rett syndrome meet the ISCD criterion for osteoporosis in children, the use of bisphosphonates is recommended. CONCLUSION: A clinically significant history of fracture in combination with low bone densitometry findings is necessary for a diagnosis of osteoporosis. These evidence and consensus-based guidelines have the potential to improve bone health in those with Rett syndrome, reduce the frequency of fractures, and stimulate further research that aims to ameliorate the impacts of this serious comorbidity.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.112 · 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