MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214544236 · doi:10.1002/mus.27527

Explanatory factors of dynamic balance impairment in myotonic dystrophy type 1

2022· article· en· W4214544236 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Bélair, Isabelle Côté, Cynthia Gagnon, Jean Mathieu, Élise Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyotonic dystrophyIsometric exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)MedicineDynamic balanceAnklePhysical therapyMuscle weaknessPopulationNeuromuscular diseaseDiseaseInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a neuromuscular disease affecting many systems and for which muscle weakness is one of the cardinal symptoms. People with DM1 also present with balance-related impairments and high fall risk. The aim of this study was to explore explanatory factors of dynamic balance impairment in the DM1 population. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data collected as part of a larger study was performed. The Mini Balance Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest) was used to assess dynamic balance. Age, sex, and CTG repeat length in blood were retrieved from medical records and research files. The maximal isometric muscle strength of five lower limb muscle groups (hip flexors and extensors, knee flexors and extensors, and ankle dorsiflexors) was quantitatively assessed as well as fatigue. Standard multiple regression analysis was used. RESULTS: Fifty-two individuals (31 men) aged between 24 and 81 years were included. The final model explains 65.9% of the balance score; ankle dorsiflexor muscle strength was the strongest explanatory factor, followed by CTG repeat length, age and fatigue to a lesser extent. DISCUSSION: Dynamic balance is impaired in people with DM1. Results of this study suggest that rehabilitation interventions aimed at improving strength of the ankle dorsiflexors and managing fatigue could help to improve dynamic balance in this specific population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207