Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index: Sensitivity for Change in Generalized Muscle Weakness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The recently developed Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index (MGII) is a promising measure as it has less floor effects and a higher relative efficiency in its responsiveness to treatment effect compared to other MG measures. This study aimed at validating the MGII in a Dutch cohort of MG patients and analyzing the sensitivity of MGII compared to MG-ADL for changes in generalized weakness. METHODS: We analyzed (generalized items of; -gen) MGII, quantitative myasthenia gravis (QMG), Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL), EQ-5D visual analog, Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) and ACTIVLIM (an ADL questionnaire focusing on generalized weakness) scores in a prospective cohort of 99 MG patients. We investigated correlations between MGII and other outcome measures. We used a generalized linear model to assess whether MGIIgen had an additional sensitivity on top of MG-ADLgen for changes (Δ) in QMGgen in individual patients. RESULTS: MGII had a lower floor effect (4%) compared to QMG (6%), MG-ADL (11%) and MGC (16%). MGII correlated well with QMG (r = 0.68), MG-ADL (r = 0.83) and MGC (r = 0.74). As expected, the correlations with EQ visual analog and ACTIVLIM were lower (r = - 0.57 and - 0.48). ΔMGIIgen had an additional value on top of ΔMG-ADLgen in the prediction of ΔQMGgen (B = 0.54, p = 0.01). DISCUSSION: The MGII score was cross-culturally validated in a Dutch cohort of MG patients. MGII had a higher sensitivity for generalized weakness than MG-ADL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".