MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366086061 · doi:10.1186/s13023-023-02686-6

Consensus clinical management guidelines for acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (Niemann–Pick disease types A, B and A/B)

2023· article· en· W4366086061 on OpenAlexaff
Tarekegn Geberhiwot, Melissa Wasserstein, Subadra Wanninayake, Shaun Bolton, Andrea Dardis, Anna Lehman, Olivier Lidove, Charlotte Dawson, Roberto Giugliani, Jackie Imrie, Justin Hopkin, James Green, Daniel de Vicente Corbeira, Shyam Madathil, Eugen Mengel, Fatih Süheyl Ezgü, Magali Pettazzoni, Barbara Sjouke, Carla E. M. Hollak, Marie T. Vanier, Margaret M. McGovern, Edward H. Schuchman

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConsumers, Health and Food Executive AgencyEuropean Commission
KeywordsAcid sphingomyelinaseDiseaseHuman geneticsNiemann–Pick diseaseMedicineDisease managementIntensive care medicineSphingomyelinChemistryBiochemistryInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acid Sphingomyelinase Deficiency (ASMD) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder caused by mutations in the SMPD1 gene. This rarity contributes to misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis and barriers to good care. There are no published national or international consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with ASMD. For these reasons, we have developed clinical guidelines that defines standard of care for ASMD patients. METHODS: The information contained in these guidelines was obtained through a systematic literature review and the experiences of the authors in their care of patients with ASMD. We adopted the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) system as method of choice for the guideline development process. RESULTS: The clinical spectrum of ASMD, although a continuum, varies substantially with subtypes ranging from a fatal infantile neurovisceral disorder to an adult-onset chronic visceral disease. We produced 39 conclusive statements and scored them according to level of evidence, strengths of recommendations and expert opinions. In addition, these guidelines have identified knowledge gaps that must be filled by future research. CONCLUSION: These guidelines can inform care providers, care funders, patients and their carers about best clinical practice and leads to a step change in the quality of care for patients with ASMD with or without enzyme replacement therapy (ERT).

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0130.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations88
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicLysosomal Storage Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207