THUR 231 Developing a new rating scale for ocular myasthenia gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ocular Myasthenia Gravis (OMG) causes ptosis and diplopia, which can be disabling. For this study, OMG is defined as MG patients who have ocular symptoms only and no generalised involvement. A robust way of assessing the severity of OMG symptoms is important for research, to assess treatment and outcome. The rating scales recommended for MG research have a predominant focus on generalised disease, and are insufficiently sensitive for OMG due to the limited number of ocular questions. This study aims to create a new rating scale for OMG that is sensitive, reliable and clinically usable. We present our proposal of such a rating scale, which incorporates physician- and patient-rated components. We report the preliminary results of this pilot observational cohort study, in 60 patients with OMG. We compare the results of this with the MG composite scale. Future work is planned to validate this rating scale and to develop this alongside the MG Impairment Index (MGII). For future phases of this study we plan to assess the usability of this rating scale by Neurologists without specialist Neuro-ophthalmology. We invite feedback from Neurologists at the ABN.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".