What is known about muscle weakness, balance impairments and indoor mobility limitations in oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to map the body of existing literature regarding muscle strength, balance and mobility limitations in oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD). Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology was followed. All original research including participants with OPMD 18 years or older and describing muscle strength, balance and/or mobility limitations using clinical outcome assessments retrieved from the PubMed, MEDLINE, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINHAL Plus databases (searched before January 30 th , 2023) were included. Results: Titles and abstracts from 416 studies were screened, and 54 articles were fully reviewed. Proximal upper and lower limb muscle strength were assessed in majority (92.6% of studies). Lack of common methodology made conclusions on their prevalence and severity difficult. Regarding balance, no performance outcome measures was retrieved. 29.6 to 63.0% of studies addressed mobility limitations; only two prospective longitudinal studies were retrieved, and two studies used reference values to assess impairments/limitations severity. Conclusion: This scoping review highlights the current knowledge on muscle strength, balance and mobility limitations in OPMD. A lack of balance and complete mobility assessments, and OPMD-specific questionnaire for motor impairments or mobility limitations are noted. Future studies should focus on using standardized clinical outcome assessments to better document these impairments/limitations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".