Mitochondrial disease registries worldwide: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mitochondrial diseases are a large group of genetically heterogeneous and clinically diverse disorders. Diagnosis often takes many years for which treatment may not exist. Registries are often used to conduct research, establish natural disease progression, engage the patient community, and develop best disease management practices. In Canada, there are limited centralized registries for mitochondrial disease patients, presenting a challenge for patients and professionals. OBJECTIVE: To support the creation of such a registry, a systematic scoping review was conducted to map the landscape of mitochondrial disease patient registries worldwide, with a focus on registry design and challenges. Furthermore, it addresses a knowledge gap by providing a narrative synthesis of published literature that describes these registries. METHODS: Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework was followed to systematically search English-language literature in PubMed and CINAHL describing the designs of mitochondrial disease patient registries, supplemented by a grey literature search. Data were extracted in Microsoft Excel. Stakeholder consultations were also performed with patient caregivers, advocates, and researchers to provide perspectives beyond those found in the literature. These data were thematically analyzed and were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 17 articles were identified describing 13 unique registries located in North America, Europe, Australia, and West Asia. These papers described the registries' designs, their strengths, and weaknesses, as well as their tangible outcomes such as facilitating recruitment for research and supporting epidemiological studies. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings in this review, recommendations were formulated. These include establishing registry objectives, respecting patients and their roles in the registry, adopting international data standards, data evaluations, and considerations to privacy legislation, among others. These recommendations could be used to support designing a future Canadian mitochondrial disease patient registry, and to further research directly engaging these registries worldwide.
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 | 0.053 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".