MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406282448 · doi:10.1016/j.ejpn.2025.01.004

Transition of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy from paediatric to adult care: An international Delphi consensus study

2025· article· en· W4406282448 on OpenAlexafffund
Diana Castro, Thomas Sejersen, Luca Bello, Filippo Buccella, Anita Cairns, Jorge Carranza-del Río, Imelda J. M. de Groot, Lauren Elman, Isabella Inzani, Andrea Klein, Oscar H. Mayer, Hawken Miller, Alessandro Onofri, Alexandra Prufer de Queiroz Campos Araújo, Ulrike Schara‐Schmidt, Karsten Vanden Wyngaert, Leanne M. Ward, Jo M. Wilmshurst

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Paediatric Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersPTC TherapeuticsUniversity of OttawaInnovation and Technology CommissionSarepta TherapeuticsRoche
KeywordsDuchenne muscular dystrophyMedicineDelphi methodAdult careMuscular dystrophyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsYoung adultGerontologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a rare neuromuscular disorder characterized by a progressive decline in muscle function, leading to loss of ambulation, respiratory and cardiac failure, and ultimately death. Improvements in DMD management have increased patient life expectancy; therefore, there is a growing requirement for patients to transfer from paediatric to adult care services. There is also a need for clear recommendations to guide this process. AIM: To establish international consensus guidelines regarding best practices for transitioning patients with DMD from paediatric to adult care and ensuring continuity of treatment. METHODS: Consensus statements were developed using the Delphi process and scored using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The initiative was led by a steering committee (one non-voting chair and two voting members) who recruited 15 expert panellists to form the consensus group. Following an initial systematic literature search, the consensus group voted in three voting rounds. Round 1 (free-text responses to questions) and Round 2 (importance ranking of statements) were completed using an online survey. Round 3 (voting on final consensus statements) took place during a virtual consensus meeting. CONSENSUS STATEMENTS: Consensus was reached on 48 statements covering the topics of transition planning, the transition process, post-transfer management, communicating with young people with DMD and supporting them with the transition to adult life. CONCLUSION: These consensus statements provide guidelines for improving transition practices for young people with DMD and promoting continued care at a comparable standard in adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.164
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1640.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Paediatric NeurologySame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207