MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525210416 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.13282

Participation restriction in childhood phenotype of myotonic dystrophy type 1: a systematic retrospective chart review

2016· article· en· W2525210416 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cynthia Gagnon, Marie Kierkegaard, Catherine Blackburn, Nicolas Chrestian, Mélissa Lavoie, Marie‐Frédéric Bouchard, Jean Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsPediatricsSpouseMedicineLegal guardianPsychologyPsychiatryGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1), a neuromuscular disorder, is divided into four clinical phenotypes: congenital; childhood; adult-onset, and late-onset. Publications about the childhood phenotype, especially the long-term outcome, are scarce. The aims of this study were to assess and describe participation outcomes in adults with the childhood phenotype. METHOD: A retrospective chart methodology. Data were extracted from health records for 63 adults with childhood DM1 (32 males, 31 females; mean age 34y, standard deviation [SD] 11y 6mo; range 18-54y) who had attended the Saguenay Neuromuscular Clinic, Canada. RESULTS: Thirty-four adults (54%) lived with their parents or in foster homes, and most patients needed services or help to live independently. A significant proportion (22%) were isolated in regard to friendship. Very few adults had children, although 33% lived with a spouse. The majority of patients (86%) relied on social security and only one person was currently working. Financial responsibilities were often an issue and 13 (21%) were under legal guardianship. INTERPRETATION: This study showed that patients with the childhood phenotype present a guarded prognosis regarding long-term social participation. These participation restrictions could be related to behavioural, cognitive, and social stigma problems in childhood. This study illustrates the absolute necessity to pursue an interdisciplinary follow-up of these patients when they are reaching adulthood.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207