MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331494550 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.26

Truths and Misinformation: A Qualitative Exploration of Myotonic Dystrophy

2015· article· en· W2331494550 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kori A. LaDonna, Amer A. Ghavanini, Shannon L. Venance

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsCredit Valley HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationMyotonic dystrophyPhotovoiceQualitative researchPsychologyDiseaseGenetic counselingPerceptionMedicineMedical educationClinical psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyPathologySociologyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myotonic dystrophy (DM1) is an autosomal dominant, progressive, and multisystem condition that impacts affected individuals physically, socially, and emotionally. Understanding individuals' perceptions of their disease is critical to ensuring appropriate information, education, and counseling. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of findings from a larger study that used a novel, qualitative research approach called photovoice to explore nine patients' experiences of living with DM1. Participants took pictures that illustrated barriers or facilitators to living with DM1; their photographs then formed the basis of semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed and, among themes, we identified one titled "DM1 truths and misinformation" that described participants' disease knowledge. Analysis revealed four categories within this broader theme: "the physical and emotional cost of DM1," "managing my DM1," "genetics and me" and "patients as advocates and educators." RESULTS: Findings showed that DM1 participants had good core knowledge with respect to their disease and its implications. However, each participant held as fact fragments of misinformation that shaped decision-making and pointed to a clear need for strategies to mitigate variable interpretation of health information. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is a need for increased education and awareness about symptoms, genetic information and treatment strategies for patients, their family members, and health care providers.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207