Gross Motor Function in Pediatric Onset <i>TUBB4A</i> -Related Leukodystrophy: GMFM-88 Performance and Validation of GMFC-MLD in <i>TUBB4A</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TUBB4A pathogenic variants are associated with a spectrum of neurologic impairments including movement disorders and leukodystrophy. With the development of targeted therapies, there is an urgent unmet need for validated tools to measure mobility impairment. Our aim is to explore gross motor function in a pediatric-onset TUBB4A-related leukodystrophy cohort with existing gross motor outcome tools. Gross Motor Function Measure-88 (GMFM-88), Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS-ER), and Gross Motor Function Classification-Metachromatic Leukodystrophy (GMFC-MLD) were selected through face validity. Subjects with a confirmed clinical and molecular diagnosis of TUBB4A-related leukodystrophy were enrolled. Participants’ sex, age, genotype, and age at disease onset were collected, together with GMFM-88 and concurrent GMFCS-ER and GMFC-MLD. Performances on each measure were compared. GMFM-88 floor effect was defined as total score below 20%. A total of 35 subjects participated. Median performance by GMFM-88 was 16.24% (range 0-97.31), with 42.9% (n = 15) of individuals performing above the floor. GMFM-88 Dimension A (Lying and Rolling) was the best-performing dimension in the GMFM-88 (n = 29 above the floor). All levels of the Classification Scales were represented, with the exception of the GMFC-MLD level 0. Evaluation by GMFM-88 was strongly correlated with the Classification Scales (Spearman correlations: GMFCS-ER:GMFM-88 r = 0.90; GMFC-MLD:GMFM-88 r = 0.88; GMFCS-ER:GMFC-MLD: r = 0.92). Despite overall observation of a floor effect, the GMFM-88 is able to accurately capture the performance of individuals with attenuated phenotypes. GMFM-88 Dimension A shows no floor effect. GMFC-MLD shows a strong correlation with GMFCS-ER and GMFM-88, supporting its use as an age-independent functional score in TUBB4A-related leukodystrophy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".