Mismatch Negativity Recording in Children With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies on Duchenne muscular dystrophy children support the hypothesis of a specific neuropsychological phenotype affecting mostly phonological skills. This prospective study aimed to shed light on the role of phonological abilities. Fourteen Duchenne muscular dystrophy children and 7 healthy children underwent mismatch negativity. Moreover, verbal intelligence, visuospatial attention, immediate verbal memory, working memory, grammar, vocabulary, visuomotor skills, reading, text comprehension, writing, and arithmetic were tested in Duchenne muscular dystrophy children. No significant difference between control and Duchenne muscular dystrophy children was found neither for mismatch negativity amplitude (P = .191 and .116, respectively) nor for latency (P = .135). Eight (57.14%) patients showed an impairment of immediate verbal memory and of visuomotor skills, 7 (63.64%) patients had a deficit in writing and arithmetic skills, even with a mean normal intelligence quotient. Taken together, the results put in evidence a heterogeneous neuropsychological profile not explainable on the basis of a phonological deficit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".