MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620788257 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2017.204

Effects of Self-Selected Exercise on Strength in Charcot–Marie–Tooth Disease Subtypes

2017· article· en· W2620788257 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Djurdja Djordjevic, Sabrina Fell, Steven K. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of GuelphMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyGrip strengthElbow flexionPes cavusElbowTooth diseasePopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies have supported the utility of exercise as a treatment for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) patients. Despite being the most common inherited neuropathy, there remains a paucity of guidelines for CMT management. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 297 CMT patients. Self-reported exercise and strength results from standardized dynamometer testing were obtained from adult patients' first visits. Values were converted and analyzed based on previously reported age- and sex-matched normative values. RESULTS: Participants with CMT2 had greater strength values than those with CMT1 in hand grip, elbow flexion, and dorsiflexion (p<0.05). Participants with CMT1 and CMT2 who exercised were statistically significantly stronger in elbow flexion and dorsiflexion than those who did not exercise. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest that self-directed exercise is associated with greater strength in CMT patients of both CMT1 and CMT2 subtypes. Self-directed exercise may be a convenient, sustainable, and effective method of improving strength and decreasing disability in this population. Future research should explore the type of exercise prescription that best addresses the needs of the CMT population.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207