MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2931529860 · doi:10.1186/s12891-019-2458-7

What is known about the effects of exercise or training to reduce skeletal muscle impairments of patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1? A scoping review

2019· review· en· W2931529860 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Pier Roussel, Marika Morin, Cynthia Gagnon, Élise Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFondation du Grand défi Pierre Lavoie
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyCINAHLMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStrength trainingPhysical therapyRehabilitationSports medicineWastingSarcopeniaPsychological interventionSkeletal muscleMuscular dystrophyNeuromuscular diseaseDiseaseInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a neuromuscular disease characterized by multisystemic involvements including a progressive loss of maximal muscle strength and muscle wasting. Poor lower-limb strength is an important factor explaining disrupted social participation of affected individuals. This review aims to map what is known about the effects of exercise and training programs undertaken to counteract skeletal muscle impairments in DM1 patients. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched. Regarding study eligibility, title and abstract of 704 studies followed by 45 full articles were reviewed according to the following eligibility criteria. Inclusion: (1) humans with DM1 and (2) experimental protocol relying on exercise or training. Exclusion: (1) studies that do not evaluate skeletal muscle responses or adaptations, (2) reviews covering articles already included and (3) pharmacological intervention at the same time of exercise or training program. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers were selected for in-depth analysis. Different exercise or training protocols were found including: acute exercise, neuromuscular electric stimulation, strength training, aerobic training, balance training and multiple rehabilitation interventions. Seven studies reported clinical measurements only, five physiological parameters only and nine both types. CONCLUSION: This scoping review offers a complete summary of the current scientific literature on the effect of exercise and training in DM1 and a framework for future studies based on the concomitant evaluation of the several outcomes in present literature. Although there were a good number of studies focusing on clinical measurements, heterogeneity between studies does not allow to identify what are the adequate training parameters to obtain exercise or training-induced positive impacts on muscle function. Scientific literature is even more scarce regarding physiological parameters, where much more research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of exercise response in DM1.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations41
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207