A multidisciplinary approach and consensus statement to establish standards of care for Angelman syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angelman syndrome (AS) is a rare neurogenetic disorder present in approximately 1/12,000 individuals and characterized by developmental delay, cognitive impairment, motor dysfunction, seizures, gastrointestinal concerns, and abnormal electroencephalographic background. AS is caused by absent expression of the paternally imprinted gene UBE3A in the central nervous system. Disparities in the management of AS are a major problem in preparing for precision therapies and occur even in patients with access to experts and recognized clinics. AS patients receive care based on collective provider experience due to limited evidence-based literature. We present a consensus statement and comprehensive literature review that proposes a standard of care practices for the management of AS at a critical time when therapeutics to alter the natural history of the disease are on the horizon. METHODS: We compiled the key recognized clinical features of AS based on consensus from a team of specialists managing patients with AS. Working groups were established to address each focus area with committees comprised of providers who manage >5 individuals. Committees developed management guidelines for their area of expertise. These were compiled into a final document to provide a framework for standardizing management. Evidence from the medical literature was also comprehensively reviewed. RESULTS: Areas covered by working groups in the consensus document include genetics, developmental medicine, psychology, general health concerns, neurology (including movement disorders), sleep, psychiatry, orthopedics, ophthalmology, communication, early intervention and therapies, and caregiver health. Working groups created frameworks, including flowcharts and tables, to help with quick access for providers. Data from the literature were incorporated to ensure providers had review of experiential versus evidence-based care guidelines. CONCLUSION: Standards of care in the management of AS are keys to ensure optimal care at a critical time when new disease-modifying therapies are emerging. This document is a framework for providers of all familiarity levels.
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 | 0.237 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".