The long exercise test as a functional marker of periodic paralysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of the long exercise test (LET) in the diagnosis of periodic paralysis (PP) and assess correlations with clinical phenotypes and genotypes. METHODS: From an unselected cohort of 335 patients who had an LET we analyzed 67 patients with genetic confirmation of PP and/or a positive LET. RESULTS: 32/45 patients with genetically confirmed PP had a significant decrement after exercise (sensitivity of 71%). Performing the short exercise test before the LET in the same hand confounded results in four patients. Sensitivity was highest in patients with frequent (daily or weekly) attacks (8/8, 100%), intermediate with up to monthly attacks (15/21, 71%) and lowest in those with rare attacks (9/16, 56%) (p = .035, Mann-Whitney U-test). Patients with a positive LET without confirmed PP mutation comprised those with typical PP phenotype and a group with atypical features. DISCUSSION: In our cohort, the LET is strongly correlated with the frequency of paralytic attacks suggesting a role as a functional marker. A negative test in the context of frequent attacks makes a diagnosis of PP unlikely but it does not rule out the condition in less severely affected patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".