The Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the quantitative myasthenia gravis score (QMGS) accurately represents disease severity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: One hundred thirty-five patients with MG from 2 previous randomized studies were included. QMGS correlation with the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) score, quality of life scale, acetylcholine receptor antibodies (AChRAbs), and electrophysiological parameters was studied. RESULTS: The QMGS showed a good correlation with the MGFA scale (r² = 0.54, P < 0.0001), jitter (rs = 0.40, P < 0.0001), and 15-item quality of life scale (rs = 0.41, P = 0.007) and was less well correlated with the 60-item myasthenia gravis-specific quality of life survey and other electrophysiological markers. No correlation was demonstrated with AchRAb titers, but AchRAb-positive patients had higher QMGS (14.2 ± 4.5) than AchRAb-negative patients (12.0 ± 3.7, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the QMGS is a valid marker for disease severity as shown by the MGFA scale, quality of life scale, and jitter, supporting the use of the QMGS as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials of MG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".