MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561620757 · doi:10.1002/mus.25539

Electrophysiological testing is correlated with myasthenia gravis severity

2016· article· en· W2561620757 on OpenAlexaff
Alon Abraham, Ari Breiner, Carolina Barnett, Hans Katzberg, Leif E. Lovblom, Mylan Ngo RT, Vera Bril

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyasthenia gravisMedicineRepetitive nerve stimulationWeaknessElectromyographyDiseaseElectrophysiologyNeuromuscular diseaseRetrospective cohort studyMuscle weaknessInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Electrophysiological studies play an important role in the diagnosis of myasthenia gravis (MG). The objectives of this study was to explore the correlation of jitter and decrement with various clinical symptoms and signs and disease severity. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 75 MG patients who attended the neuromuscular clinic from April 2013 to May 2014. We compared clinical characteristics between patients with high jitter (>100 µs) and decrement (>10%), and patients with lower values to explore the correlations and optimal thresholds of jitter and decrement for different clinical features. RESULTS: High jitter and decrement values were associated with more severe disease, manifested by more frequent symptomatic bulbar and limb muscle weakness, more frequent ocular and limb muscle weakness on examination, higher quantitative MG score, and generalized disease. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of the electrophysiological assessment in MG extends beyond disease diagnosis and correlates with disease severity and the presence of generalized disease. Muscle Nerve 56: 445-448, 2017.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMyasthenia Gravis and ThymomaFrench-language works237,207