Natural history of Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease during childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of disease progression in a longitudinal natural history study of children with Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease. METHODS: Two hundred six (103 female) participants aged 3 to 20 years enrolled in the Inherited Neuropathies Consortium were assessed at baseline and 2 years. Demographic, anthropometric, and diagnostic information were collected. Disease progression was assessed with the CMT Pediatric Scale (CMTPedS), a reliable Rasch-built linearly weighted disability scale evaluating fine and gross motor function, strength, sensation, and balance. RESULTS: On average, CMTPedS Total scores progressed at a rate of 2.4 ± 4.9 over 2 years (14% change from baseline; p < 0.001). There was no difference between males and females (mean difference, 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 1.9; p = 0.49). The most responsive CMTPedS items were dorsiflexion strength (z-score change, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.05; p = 0.02), balance (z-score change, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.9 to -0.09; p = 0.03), and long jump (z-score change, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.7 to -0.02; p = 0.04). Of the most common genetic subtypes, 111 participants with CMT1A/PMP22 duplication progressed by 1.8 ± 4.2 (12% change from baseline; p < 0.001), 9 participants with CMT1B/MPZ mutation progressed by 2.2 ± 5.1 (11% change), 6 participants with CMT2A/MFN2 mutation progressed by 6.2 ± 7.9 (23% change), and 7 participants with CMT4C/SH3TC2 mutations progressed by 3.0 ± 4.5 (12% change). Participants with CMT2A progressed faster than CMT1A (mean difference, -4.4; 95% CI, -8.1 to -0.8; p = 0.02). Children with CMT1A progressed consistently through early childhood (3-10 years) and adolescence (11-20 years; mean difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.6 to 2.7; p = 0.19), whereas CMT2A appeared to progress faster during early childhood than adolescence (mean difference, 10.0; 95% CI, -2.2 to 22.2; p = 0.08). INTERPRETATION: Using the CMTPedS as an outcome measure of disease severity, children with CMT progress at a significant rate over 2 years. Understanding the rate at which children with CMT deteriorate is essential for adequately powering trials of disease-modifying interventions. Ann Neurol 2017;82:353-359.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".