Life expectancy at birth in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies indicate that prognosis for survival in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) has improved in recent decades. However, published evidence is inconclusive and some estimates may be obsolete due to improvements in standards of care, in particular the routine use of mechanical ventilatory support in advanced stages of the disease. In this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42019121800), we searched MEDLINE (through PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for studies published from inception up until December 31, 2018, reporting results of life expectancy in DMD. We pooled median survival estimates from individual studies using the median of medians, and weighted median of medians, methods. Risk of bias was established with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were stratified by ventilatory support and risk of bias. We identified 15 publications involving 2662 patients from 12 countries from all inhabited continents except Africa. Median life expectancy without ventilatory support ranged between 14.4 and 27.0 years (pooled median: 19.0 years, 95% CI 18.0-20.9; weighted pooled median: 19.4 years, 18.2-20.1). Median life expectancy with ventilatory support, introduced in most settings in the 1990s, ranged between 21.0 and 39.6 years (pooled median: 29.9 years, 26.5-30.8; weighted pooled median: 31.8 years, 29.3-36.2). Risk of bias had little impact on pooled results. In conclusion, median life expectancy at birth in DMD seems to have improved considerably during the last decades. With current standards of care, many patients with DMD can now expect to live into their fourth decade of life.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".