The requirement for a disease‐specific patient‐reported outcome measure of dysphagia in oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is no patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire specifically designed to assess oropharyngeal dysphagia in oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD). To select a suitable questionnaire, content validity of the existing questionnaires must be assessed. This study sought (1) to identify dysphagia-related symptoms in OPMD and (2) to assess content validity of currently available PRO for the assessment of dysphagia severity in OPMD. METHODS: A two-step literature review was conducted of dysphagia-related symptom identification and oropharyngeal dysphagia-related PRO. Symptoms were validated with an expert panel by using a Delphi survey. Content validity of PRO questionnaires was documented through content analysis. RESULTS: Ten PRO questionnaires were identified. None of the questionnaires cover the entire symptom spectrum in OPMD and thus lack content validity. DISCUSSION: The development and validation of a new PRO questionnaire to assess dysphagia in OPMD is required to establish the importance of symptomatic relief from new treatments. Muscle Nerve 59:445-450, 2019.
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 | 0.043 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".