MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205590609 · doi:10.1044/2021_persp-21-00070

Dysphagia in Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy: A Rapid Scoping Review

2021· article· en· W3205590609 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Werden Abrams, Harmonie Chan, Jasmeet Sikand, Heather Wilkie, Kim Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphagiaOculopharyngeal muscular dystrophyMedicinePsychological interventionRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Dysphagia is a common symptom of the rare genetic disease oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD). There are, however, limited resources and recommendations for speech-language pathologists who treat individuals with this condition. This review provides a consolidation of the literature to understand how the components and outcomes of intervention for dysphagia rehabilitation are described and studied in adults with OPMD. Method: A rapid scoping review was completed to identify studies related to dysphagia interventions for adults with OPMD. Data were extracted and analyzed through the lens of the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health frameworks. Results: A total of eight studies met the review criteria. Six of the studies described rehabilitative interventions, and three focused on outcomes of intervention. Rehabilitation interventions were not described in detail, and a wide variety of outcome measures were used. Conclusions: There is limited research to guide clinical decision-making and intervention for dysphagia rehabilitation in OPMD at this time. Neurodegenerative disorder research may be beneficial in guiding clinical practice. Further research is required to determine the most effective interventions for individuals with 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest GroupsSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207