MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804385143 · doi:10.1186/s13023-018-0785-7

Consensus clinical management guidelines for Niemann-Pick disease type C

2018· review· en· W2804385143 on OpenAlexaff
Tarekegn Geberhiwot, Alessandro Moro, Andrea Dardis, Uma Ramaswami, Sandra Sirrs, M. Pineda, Marie T. Vanier, Mark Walterfang, Shaun Bolton, Charlotte Dawson, Bénédicte Héron, Miriam Stampfer, Jackie Imrie, Christian J. Hendriksz, Paul Gissen, Ellen Crushell, María José Coll, Yann Nadjar, Hans H. Klünemann, Eugen Mengel, Martin Hřebı́ček, Simon Jones, Daniel Ory, Bruno Bembi, Marc C. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
FundersEuropean CommissionConsumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive AgencyUniversity College LondonUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsGuidelineDiseaseMedicineLife expectancyNiemann–Pick disease, type CNewborn screeningHealth careIncidence (geometry)PediatricsIntensive care medicinePathologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Niemann-Pick Type C (NPC) is a progressive and life limiting autosomal recessive disorder caused by mutations in either the NPC1 or NPC2 gene. Mutations in these genes are associated with abnormal endosomal-lysosomal trafficking, resulting in the accumulation of multiple tissue specific lipids in the lysosomes. The clinical spectrum of NPC disease ranges from a neonatal rapidly progressive fatal disorder to an adult-onset chronic neurodegenerative disease. The age of onset of the first (beyond 3 months of life) neurological symptom may predict the severity of the disease and determines life expectancy.NPC has an estimated incidence of ~ 1: 100,000 and the rarity of the disease translate into misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis and barriers to good care. For these reasons, we have developed clinical guidelines that define standard of care for NPC patients, foster shared care arrangements between expert centres and family physicians, and empower patients. The information contained in these guidelines was obtained through a systematic review of the literature and the experiences of the authors in their care of patients with NPC. We adopted the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) system as method of choice for the guideline development process. We made a series of conclusive statements and scored them according to level of evidence, strengths of recommendations and expert opinions. These guidelines can inform care providers, care funders, patients and their carers of best practice of care for patients with NPC. In addition, these guidelines have identified gaps in the knowledge that must be filled by future research. It is anticipated that the implementation of these guidelines will lead to a step change in the quality of care for patients with NPC irrespective of their geographical location.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.270 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations293
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicLysosomal Storage Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207