MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392618819 · doi:10.1016/j.ejpn.2024.03.003

Newborn screening in metachromatic leukodystrophy – European consensus-based recommendations on clinical management

2024· article· en· W4392618819 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Paediatric Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health CentreNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeBundesministerium für GesundheitDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Institutes of HealthChildren's Hospital FoundationMcGill University
KeywordsMetachromatic leukodystrophyLeukodystrophyMedicineIntensive care medicineNewborn screeningPediatricsPsychiatryPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder resulting from arylsulfatase A enzyme deficiency, leading to toxic sulfatide accumulation. As a result affected individuals exhibit progressive neurodegeneration. Treatments such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and gene therapy are effective when administered pre-symptomatically. Newborn screening (NBS) for MLD has recently been shown to be technically feasible and is indicated because of available treatment options. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to monitor and manage identified cases. This study aims to establish consensus among international experts in MLD and patient advocates on clinical management for NBS-identified MLD cases. METHODS: A real-time Delphi procedure using eDELPHI software with 22 experts in MLD was performed. Questions, based on a literature review and workshops, were answered during a seven-week period. Three levels of consensus were defined: A) 100%, B) 75-99%, and C) 50-74% or >75% but >25% neutral votes. Recommendations were categorized by agreement level, from strongly recommended to suggested. Patient advocates participated in discussions and were involved in the final consensus. RESULTS: The study presents 57 statements guiding clinical management of NBS-identified MLD patients. Key recommendations include timely communication by MLD experts with identified families, treating early-onset MLD with gene therapy and late-onset MLD with HSCT, as well as pre-treatment monitoring schemes. Specific knowledge gaps were identified, urging prioritized research for future evidence-based guidelines. DISCUSSION: Consensus-based recommendations for NBS in MLD will enhance harmonized management and facilitate integration in national screening programs. Structured data collection and monitoring of screening programs are crucial for evidence generation and future guideline development. Involving patient representatives in the development of recommendations seems essential for NBS programs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.298 · 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