MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394952491 · doi:10.1183/23120541.00989-2023

Estimates of primary ciliary dyskinesia prevalence: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4394952491 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

VenueERJ Open Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioStollery Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicinePrimary ciliary dyskinesiaDyskinesiaOptometryPrimary carePrimary (astronomy)Family medicineInternal medicineDiseaseBronchiectasisLungParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare multisystem genetic disease caused by dysfunctional motile cilia. Despite PCD being the second most common inherited airway disease after cystic fibrosis, PCD continues to be under-recognised globally owing to nonspecific clinical features and the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test. Commonly repeated prevalence estimates range from one in 10 000 to one in 20 000, based on regional epidemiological studies with known limitations. The purpose of this scoping review was to appraise the PCD literature, to determine the best available global PCD prevalence estimate and to inform the reader about the potential unmet health service needs in PCD. The primary objective of the present study was to systematically review the literature about PCD prevalence estimates. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodology. Included studies estimated PCD prevalence and used cohort, clinical or genomic data. Case reports, conference abstracts, review articles, animal studies or non-English articles were excluded. Results: A literature review identified 3484 unique abstracts; 34 underwent full-text review and eight met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Seven articles were based on epidemiological studies of specific geographical regions and provided prevalence estimates that ranged from approximately one to 44.1 in 100 000. Only one study estimated global prevalence, using two large genomic databases, and calculated it to be ∼13.2 in 100 000 (based on pathogenic variants in 29 disease-causing genes). Conclusions: A population-based genomic approach for estimating global prevalence has found that PCD is much more prevalent than previously cited in the literature. This highlights the potential unmet health service needs of people living with PCD.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.311
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.276 · 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