MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415174448 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.16501

Scientific Posters

2025· article· en· W4415174448 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillCerebral Palsy AllianceUniversity of QueenslandSchool of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Commonwealth UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of SydneyUniversity of MinnesotaCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgarySchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityAlberta Health ServicesSydney Medical SchoolFoundation for Biomedical Research and InnovationUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsObservational studyIntervention (counseling)Data extractionMuscular dystrophyWeaknessCognitionTest (biology)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective(s): Muscular dystrophies are inherited diseases causing progressive muscle weakness of varying severity.Evidence indicates their impact on cognitive functions.This review examines the relationship between physical and executive function in muscular dystrophy patients and how changes in physical function affect executive function. Study Participants & Setting:The PICO framework guided article inclusion.Criteria focused on three categories: (1) individuals with Duchenne, Becker, congenital, myotonic, limb-girdle, facioscapulohumeral, or Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy; (2) studies comparing no intervention or exercise-based interventions, with or without a control group; and (3) the relationship between physical and executive function.Only English-language observational studies (cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, RCTs) were included.Two authors screened titles and abstracts independently, with full-text review for unclear cases, and a third author resolved disagreements.Studies on other conditions (e.g., spinal muscular atrophy), individuals aged 65+, and nonresearch articles (e.g., animal studies, conference papers, protocols, reviews) were excluded.Materials/Methods: The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022351620) and followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines.Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool.Data extraction and synthesis followed systematic review guidelines.Two independent reviewers manually extracted key data, conducting a pilot test for accuracy.The table included study details (date, location, design, quality), participant and control characteristics (number, age, sex, type of muscular dystrophy), intervention details, and primary findings on the relationship between executive and physical function.Results: Our search retrieved 3,726 records.After removing 221 duplicates, 3,706 titles and abstracts were screened.Eleven full-text articles were assessed, with four excluded (two for incorrect analyses, one lacking executive function assessment, and one for inconsistent methods).Seven studies met the criteria: four on myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) and three on Becker (n = 2) or Duchenne (n = 1) muscular dystrophy.These studies included 349 individuals with muscular dystrophies and 20 healthy controls.Most participants (60.17%, n = 210) had DM1.The average age was 36.26 years (range: 6-70.3), and 35.53% (n = 124) were female.Findings indicate significant associations between motor and cognitive abilities in muscular dystrophy patients.Conclusions/Significance: The evidence highlights a complex interplay between cognitive and physical functions in muscular dystrophy.Further research is needed to clarify mechanisms underlying executive function decline and to explore relationships between executive function, functional proficiency, and physical activity.These insights could enhance understanding and inform therapeutic approaches for better patient care.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicHematological disorders and diagnosticsFrench-language works237,207