MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311315380 · doi:10.3233/jnd-221595

Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Scoping Review and Graphical Visualization of the Evidence

2022· review· en· W4311315380 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeremy Slayter, Lauren Casey, Colleen O’Connell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuromuscular Diseases · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie UniversityFondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-Brunswick
KeywordsSMA*Spinal muscular atrophyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPatient-reported outcomeQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyDiseasePsychologyRehabilitationPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) is a hereditary neuromuscular disease with an estimated prevalence of 1/10 000 births. SMA is increasingly recognized as a multi-system disease with a need to study additional under-recognized health domains such as quality of life, fatigue, bulbar function, respiratory function, and independence. OBJECTIVE: Identify and assess reported evidence from the literature investigating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in adults with SMA. Develop a novel method drawing from network theory to graphically depict the literature, PROMs, and supporting psychometric evidence. METHODS: A scoping review was completed following PRISM-ScR, COSMIN and JBI scoping review guidelines. Literature investigating PROMs in adult SMA or neuromuscular disease was identified from peer-reviewed and grey databases. A network graph was derived from extracted data. RESULTS: 5292 articles were retrieved, 81 articles met inclusion criteria; corresponding to 31 unique PROMs. Only two PROMs were developed specifically for SMA. Few PROMs covered multiple domains of health. Most PROMs were incompletely validated, focusing on concurrent validity, and few assessed responsiveness or internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: PROMs are emerging tools for monitoring and assessing adults with SMA. Despite their potential benefits, additional validation studies should be completed prior to their use for clinical decision-making. Network graphics may represent a technique to aid in the visualization of evidence supporting a scoping review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0300.025
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuromuscular DiseasesSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207