MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402572737 · doi:10.1177/00084174241255472

Social Participation Restrictions and Explanatory Factors in Adults with Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy

2024· article· en· W4402572737 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samar Muslemani, Jean‐Denis Brisson, Isabelle Côté, Isabelle Lessard, Claudia Côté, Bernard Brais, Cynthia Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOculopharyngeal muscular dystrophyPsychological interventionDysphagiaSocial engagementPopulationMedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyActivities of daily livingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Limited knowledge is available regarding the impact of oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) impairments on participation in daily and social activities, which currently hinders occupational therapy practice in this population. Purpose. To describe social participation and explore influencing factors in individuals with OPMD. Methods. Thirty-four individuals were assessed with outcome measures of social participation restrictions, mobility, dysphagia, and fatigue. Spearman correlations and stepwise multiple regression analyses were used. Findings. Results show a negative impact of OPMD on the social participation level, which was more important in participants aged over 60 years. Walking speed was found to be the main factor influencing participation levels for daily and social activities, with faster walking associated with higher participation. Conclusions. This study emphasizes the impact of OPMD impairments and limitations on social participation level. While dysphagia is obviously an important impairment to consider, interventions for mobility limitations should also be considered during clinical follow-up.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207