MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916531595 · doi:10.1007/s00415-019-09228-w

Disease burden of myotonic dystrophy type 1

2019· article· en· W2916531595 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Landfeldt, Nikoletta Nikolenko, Cecilia Jimenez‐Moreno, Sarah A. Cumming, Darren G. Monckton, Gráinne S. Gorman, Chris Turner, Hanns Lochmüller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersNational Institutes of HealthConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaResearch Councils UKMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyNeuroradiologyNeurologyMedicineDiseasePediatricsInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cross-sectional, observational study was to investigate the disease burden of myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1), a disabling muscle disorder. METHODS: Adults with DM1 were recruited as part of the PhenoDM1 study from Newcastle University (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK). Disease burden data were recorded through the Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL) questionnaire. Results were examined by sex and clinical variables [e.g. the six-minute walk test (6MWT), the Mini Mental State Examination, and estimated progenitor and modal allele CTG repeat length]. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 60 patients with DM1 (mean age: 45 years; 45% female). Muscle weakness and fatigue constituted the two most common disease manifestations, reported by 93% and 90% of patients, respectively, followed by muscle locking (73%). Most patients (> 55%) reported feeling anxious/worried, depressed, frustrated, and/or having low confidence/self-esteem, 23% and 33% indicated substantial impairment of daily and leisure activities, respectively, and 47% did not work as a consequence of the disease. Estimated progenitor CTG length corrected by age correlated surprisingly well with INQoL scores. Differences by sex were generally minor. CONCLUSION: We show that DM1 is associated with a substantial disease burden resulting in impairment across many different domains of patients' lives, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to medical management. Our results also show that the INQoL records relevant information about patients with DM1, but that further investigation of the psychometric properties of the scale is needed for meaningful interpretation of instrument scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurologySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207