<scp>Non‐dystrophic</scp> myotonia: 2‐year clinical and patient reported outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Consistency of differences between non-dystrophic myotonias over time measured by standardized clinical/patient-reported outcomes is lacking. Evaluation of longitudinal data could establish clinically relevant endpoints for future research. METHODS: Data from prospective observational study of 95 definite/clinically suspected non-dystrophic myotonia participants (six sites in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada) between March 2006 and March 2009 were analyzed. Outcomes included: standardized symptom interview/exam, Short Form-36, Individualized Neuromuscular Quality of Life (INQoL), electrophysiological short/prolonged exercise tests, manual muscle testing, quantitative grip strength, modified get-up-and-go test. Patterns were assigned as described by Fournier et al. Comparisons were restricted to confirmed sodium channelopathies (SCN4A, baseline, year 1, year 2: n = 34, 19, 13), chloride channelopathies (CLCN1, n = 32, 26, 18), and myotonic dystrophy type 2 (DM2, n = 9, 6, 2). RESULTS: Muscle stiffness was the most frequent symptom over time (54.7%-64.7%). Eyelid myotonia and paradoxical handgrip/eyelid myotonia were more frequent in SCN4A. Grip strength and combined manual muscle testing remained stable. Modified get-up-and-go showed less warm up in SCN4A but remained stable. Median post short exercise decrement was stable, except for SCN4A (baseline to year 2 decrement difference 16.6% [Q1, Q3: 9.5, 39.2]). Fournier patterns type 2 (CLCN1) and 1 (SCN4A) were most specific; 40.4% of participants had a change in pattern over time. INQoL showed higher impact for SCN4A and DM2 with scores stable over time. DISCUSSION: Symptom frequency and clinical outcome assessments were stable with defined variability in myotonia measures supporting trial designs like cross over or combined n-of-1 as important for rare disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".