ArticlePloS one2022
Development of a novel startle response task in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Startle responses in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a novel biomarker of brain dystrophin deficiency.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), an X-linked childhood-onset muscular dystrophy caused by loss of the protein dystrophin, can be associated with neurodevelopmental, emotional and behavioural problems. A DMD mouse model also displays a neuropsychiatric phenotype, including increased startle responses to threat which normalise when dystrophin is restored in the brain. We hypothesised that startle responses may also be increased in humans with DMD, which would have potential translational therapeutic implications. To investigate this, we first designed a novel discrimination fear-conditioning task and tested it in six healthy volunteers, followed by male DMD (n = 11) and Control (n = 9) participants aged 7-12 years. The aims of this methodological task development study were to: i) confirm the task efficacy; ii) optimise data processing procedures; iii) determine the most appropriate outcome measures. In the task, two neutral visual stimuli were presented: one 'safe' cue presented alone; one 'threat' cue paired with a threat stimulus (aversive noise) to enable conditioning of physiological startle responses (skin conductance response, SCR, and heart rate). Outcomes were the unconditioned physiological startle responses to the initial threat, and retention of conditioned responses in the absence of the threat stimulus. We present the protocol development and optimisation of data processing methods based on empirical data. We found that the task was effective in producing significantly higher physiological startle SCR in reinforced 'threat' trials compared to 'safe' trials (P < .001). Different data extraction methods were compared and optimised, and the optimal sampling window was derived empirically. SCR amplitude was the most effective physiological outcome measure when compared to SCR area and change in heart rate, with the best profile on data processing, the least variance, successful conditioned response retention (P = .01) and reliability assessment in test-retest analysis (rho = .86). The definition of this novel outcome will allow us to study this response in a DMD population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.