MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574481957 · doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2016-104199

A liminal stage after predictive testing for Huntington disease

2017· article· en· W2574481957 on OpenAlexaff
Marcela Gargiulo, Sophie Tézenas du Montcel, Marie France Jutras, Ariane Herson, Cécile Cazeneuve, Alexandra Dürr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsClinique Neuro-Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive testingLiminalityDiseaseStage (stratigraphy)MedicineComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceInternal medicineGeographyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Following predictive testing for Huntington disease (HD), knowledge of one's carrier status may have consequences on disease onset. Our study aimed to address two questions. First, does knowledge of being a carrier of the pathological HD mutation trigger onset of the disease? Second, does this knowledge influence self-awareness and allow carriers to identify signs and symptoms of disease onset? METHODS: Between 2012 and 2015, 75 HD mutation carriers were examined using the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) motor score. Onset estimation made with the disease burden score was compared with UHDRS findings. We collected qualitative data with questionnaires and semistructured interviews. RESULTS: 38 women and 37 men, aged 43.7 years±10.5 (20-68), were interviewed after a mean delay between test and study interview of 10.5 years±4.7 (from 4 to 21 years). Estimation of age at onset was 4.5±8.5 years earlier than data-derived age at onset. Participants were categorised according to their motor score: scores <5 were premanifest (n=35), and scores >5 were manifest carriers (n=40). Self-observation was a major preoccupation for all, independent of their clinical status (82% vs 74%, p=0.57). Among manifest carriers, 56% thought they showed symptoms, but only 33% felt ill. Interestingly, this was also observed in those without motor signs (20% and 9%). Being a mutation carrier did not significantly facilitate recognition of motor signs. Interviews with premanifest carriers allowed the burden of self-observation to be illustrated despite lack of motor signs. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating age at onset based on disease burden score may not be accurate. The transition to disease was experienced as an ambiguous or liminal experience. The view of mutation carriers is not always concordant with medical onset estimation, highlighting the difficulties involved in the concept of onset and its use as an outcome in future disease-modifying trials.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207