Analysis of the functional capacity outcome measures for myotonic dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Defining clinically relevant outcome measures for myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) that can be valid and feasible for different phenotypes has proven problematic. The Outcome Measures for Myotonic Dystrophy (OMMYD) group proposed a battery of functional outcomes: 6-minute walk test, 30 seconds sit and stand test, timed 10 m walk test, timed 10 m walk/run test, and nine-hole peg test. This, however, required a large-scale investigation, METHODS: A cohort of 213 patients enrolled in the natural history study, PhenoDM1, was analyzed in cross-sectional analysis and subsequently 98 patients were followed for longitudinal analysis. We aimed to assess: (1) feasibility and best practice; (2) intra-session reliability; (3) validity; and (4) behavior over time, of these tests. RESULTS: OMMYD outcomes proved feasible as 96% of the participants completed at least one trial for all tests and more than half (n = 113) performed all three trials of each test. Body mass index and disease severity associate with functional capacity. There was a significant difference between the first and second trials of each test. There was a moderate to strong correlation between these functional outcomes and muscle strength, disease severity and patient-reported outcomes. All outcomes after 1 year detected a change in functional capacity except the nine-hole peg test. CONCLUSIONS: These tests can be used as a battery of outcomes or independently based on the shown overlapping psychometric features and strong cross-correlations. Due to the large and heterogeneous sample of this study, these results can serve as reference values for future studies.
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 | 0.011 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".