Motor Development as a Potential Marker to Monitor Infantile Pompe Disease on Enzyme Replacement Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After Enzyme Replacement Therapy (ERT) using recombinant human acid alpha-glucosidase (rhGAA), survival of Infantile Pompe Disease (IPD) patients through the first 18 months of age has been documented and acquisitions of motor development are an important outcome, but description of its course is scarce. Objective: To describe the motor development in an IPD patient and its correlation with clinical conditions during the first 18 months on ERT with rhGAA. Methods: By longitudinal observational study of an IPD case at early stage. Clinical and biochemical characteristics were obtained from patient records. Echocardiogram assessed cardiac indexes and the urinary biomarker—glucose tetrasaccharide (Glc4)—was obtained by HPLC/UV, following sample derivatization with butyl 4-amino benzoate and analysis on a C18 stationary phase column. Motor skills were evaluated with Alberta Infant of Motor Scale (AIMS) and motor delay was considered as motor percentile (p) below 10. Descriptive statistical analysis was carried out and t-test was used to calculate the differences among means, with significance level defined as p value 4 quantified, motor development analysis showed an ascendant curve expected for age within achievement of independent ambulation. Motor delay after pneumonia and maintenance of hypotonia were noted. Variation of Glc4 appeared long after a transitory intercurrence. Conclusion: In an IPD case, motor development can have normal evolution despite hypotonia. Motor analysis seems to be sensitive to follow-up clinical intercurrences. To elucidate the interaction among prognostic factors and outcomes, further clinical studies need to be conducted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".