EURO-NMD registry: federated FAIR infrastructure, innovative technologies and concepts of a patient-centred registry for rare neuromuscular disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The EURO-NMD Registry collects data from all neuromuscular patients seen at EURO-NMD's expert centres. In-kind contributions from three patient organisations have ensured that the registry is patient-centred, meaningful, and impactful. The consenting process covers other uses, such as research, cohort finding and trial readiness. RESULTS: The registry has three-layered datasets, with European Commission-mandated data elements (EU-CDEs), a set of cross-neuromuscular data elements (NMD-CDEs) and a dataset of disease-specific data elements that function modularly (DS-DEs). The registry captures clinical, neuromuscular imaging, neuromuscular histopathology, biological and genetic data and patient-reported outcomes in a computer-interpretable format using selected ontologies and classifications. The EURO-NMD registry is connected to the EURO-NMD Registry Hub through an interoperability layer. The Hub provides an entry point to other neuromuscular registries that follow the FAIR data stewardship principles and enable GDPR-compliant information exchange. Four national or disease-specific patient registries are interoperable with the EURO-NMD Registry, allowing for federated analysis across these different resources. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, the Registry Hub brings together data that are currently siloed and fragmented to improve healthcare and advance research for neuromuscular diseases.
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 | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".