The utility of a single simple question in the evaluation of patients with myasthenia gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessing myasthenia gravis (MG) can be challenging, and multiple scales are available to evaluate disease severity. We evaluated the utility of a single, simple question, as part of the MG evaluation: "What percentage of normal do you feel regarding your MG, 0%-100% normal?" METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients attending the neuromuscular clinic from January 2014 to December 2015 was performed. Responses were correlated with symptoms and signs, the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score (QMGS), the Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index (MGII), and the 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life scale (MG-QOL15). RESULTS: The total cohort included 169 patients. The percentage of normal correlated strongly with limb muscle weakness and MG scales, moderately with bulbar and respiratory symptoms, and weakly with ocular manifestations. DISCUSSION: The question, "What percentage of normal do you feel regarding your MG?" is feasible and valid, and can be incorporated easily into routine clinical evaluation. Muscle Nerve 57: 240-244, 2018.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".