MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152523307 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2021-003

Nutritional Risk in Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy: Beyond Dysphagia

2021· article· en· W3152523307 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Catherine Forgues, Julie Fortin, Cynthia Gagnon, Jean‐Denis Brisson, Jean Mathieu, Bernard Brais, Claudia Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOculopharyngeal muscular dystrophyDysphagiaMedicineSwallowingAnthropometryBody mass indexPhysical therapyCross-sectional studyInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207