Demographic and clinical determinants of the quality of life in adults with inherited and acquired myopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Measuring health-related quality of life (QOL) is vital for understanding the disease impact, but the complex relationship between clinical parameters and QOL remains unclear. The objective was to determine the demographic and clinical factors that influence the QOL in adults with inherited and acquired myopathies. METHODS: The study was of cross-sectional design. Detailed demographic and clinical details were collected. Patients answered Neuro-QOL and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System short-form questionnaires. RESULTS: Data was collected from 100 consecutive in-person patient visits. Mean age of the cohort was 49.5 ± 20.1 (18-85) years, and the majority were male (53, 53%). Bivariate analysis between the various demographic and clinical features with the QOL scales revealed single simple question (SSQ), handgrip strength, Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score, female gender, and age to be nonuniformly associated with the QOL scales. There was no difference between inherited and acquired myopathies for any of the QOL scores, except for the poorer lower limb function domain in inherited myopathies (36.7 ± 7.3 vs. 40.9 ± 11.2, p = 0.049). Linear regression models revealed lower SSQ, lower handgrip strength, and lower MRC sum score to independently predict poor QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Handgrip strength and SSQ serve as novel predictors of QOL in myopathies. Handgrip strength has a significant impact on physical, mental, and social domains and deserves special attention with respect to rehabilitation. SSQ correlates well with QOL and can be employed as a quick and global assessment of a patient's well-being. Differences in QOL scores between patients with inherited and acquired myopathies were minimal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".