The effects of hand training in patients with Welander distal myopathy and myotonic dystrophy type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall aim was to study and gain knowledge about the effects of hand \ntraining on both functional capacity such as hand function and Activities \nof Daily Living (ADL) in patients with Welander distal myopathy (WDM) and \nMyotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1). \n \n \n \nThe thesis comprises three interventional studies regarding the effects \nof hand training in patients with WDM (Study I) and DM1 (Studies II & \nIV), and one reliability study (Study III) including test-retest and \ninter-rater reliability of four hand function testing instruments used in \nStudy IV. Study IV was a single-blinded longitudinal randomised control \ntrial (RCT) with a crossover design, i.e. a follow-up on the \ncriterion-related single-case study with five DM1 patients (Study II). \n \n \n \nFunctional data were collected by using different hand function testing \ninstruments including the Grippit® (Studies I-IV), Grip Ability Test \n(GAT) (Studies III-IV), hand-held Myometer (Microfet2™) (Studies II-IV), \nPurdue Pegboard (Studies II-IV), Manual Muscle Testing (MMT; 0-5 scale) \n(Study I) and finger goniometer (Study I). Self-rated myotonia using a \nVAS scale was added as an outcome measure in Study II. ADL were evaluated \nusing the areas of the ADL taxonomy in a structured verbal interview \n(Study I), and the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance (COPM) \n(Studies II and IV). Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) was \nevaluated in Study IV. Life satisfaction was evaluated using a modified \nversion of the Life Satisfaction Checklist (LiSat9) in Study I. \n \n \n \nFourteen WDM patients were included in Study I, five DM1 patients were \nincluded in Study II, 16 WDM patients and DM1 patients, respectively, \nparticipated in Study III and 35 DM1 patients were enrolled in Study IV. \n \n \n \nThe reliability study (Study III) showed mainly good–very good \n(intra-class correlation coefficient 0.61) intrarater (test-retest) and \ninter-rater reliability in three out of four instruments, specifically \nthe Grippit®, the handheld Myometer (Microfet2™) and the Purdue Pegboard. \n \n \n \nThe three interventional studies (Studies I-II & IV) all included a \nperiod of three months of hand training with resistance putties, both \nguided and self-training. The results of the these studies show that hand \ntraining in WDM and DM1 patients is safe, with minor but significant \nimprovements in hand function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".