The usefulness of electrodiagnostic studies in the diagnosis and management of neuromuscular disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study seeks to evaluate the usefulness of electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies in terms of the patient's diagnosis and subsequent management and to identify patient groups in which EDX is particularly useful. METHODS: The records of new patients referred to a single tertiary hospital EDX laboratory during 1 calendar year were reviewed to determine whether results of EDX studies led to a changed diagnosis and/or management plan. Logistic regression was used to determine whether any factors were associated with changed diagnosis or management. RESULTS: Results of EDX studies led to a change in diagnosis and a confirmation in diagnosis in 51.5% and 46.5% of the cases, respectively. Results of EDX studies led to a change in the management plan in 63.4% of all cases. The diagnosis and management plan were more likely to be changed in older patients and patients referred in hospital. DISCUSSION: EDX studies seem useful for confirming or changing the diagnosis and in guiding management in patients with suspected neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve 58: 191-196, 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 | 0.000 | 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".