Nutritional Risk in Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy: Beyond Dysphagia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To document the nutritional risk in adults with oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) and its association with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 33 adults with molecular confirmation of OPMD between 50 and 75 years old were recruited from the registry of a university-affiliated neuromuscular clinic. Nutritional risk was assessed with the French version of Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition II (SCREEN II), whereas the severity of dysphagia was assessed using the French-Canadian version of the Sydney Swallow Questionnaire. Anthropometric measurements were performed with standardized procedures. Results: SCREEN II scores showed high nutritional risk for 81.8% of OPMD participants with 6 factors contributing to nutritional risk in at least 50% of the sample. Pearson’s correlational analysis showed a significant moderate relationship between dysphagia and nutritional risk (r = −0.470; P = 0.006). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the nutritional risk of adults with OPMD. Our results indicate that individuals with OPMD may be at high nutritional risk mostly associated with swallowing difficulty, in the absence of a low body mass index. The present study highlights the need for dietary counseling in OPMD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".