ReviewFrontiers in immunology2026
Digital assessment in myasthenia gravis: evidence, validation, and a proposed framework for autoimmune heterogeneity, remote monitoring, and clinical endpoints.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an antibody-mediated autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction in which weakness fluctuates across symptom domains, daily activities, and treatment cycles. Established measures such as the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score, Myasthenia Gravis Composite, Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living scale, and MG-specific quality-of-life instruments remain the principal clinical anchors, but intermittent assessments may miss intraday variability, exertional fatigability, and changes across treatment cycles. This structured narrative review examines electronic patient-reported outcomes, smartphone-based active tasks, speech and video analysis, wearable sensing, telemedicine services, prediction models, and candidate digital endpoints. It also distinguishes the validation requirements of these modalities and critically appraises the MG-specific evidence. Most published studies demonstrate feasibility, adherence, acquisition reliability, or preliminary construct validity; most are small, short, and incompletely stratified by antibody subtype, and independent external validation and impact studies remain uncommon. Accordingly, subtype-specific digital trajectories should be regarded as a research hypothesis rather than as an established feature of AChR-, MuSK-, LRP4-associated, or seronegative MG. We present an MG digital phenotype and a five-stage closed-loop workflow as organizing frameworks, not as consensus standards or validated care pathways. Near-term value is most plausible in structured remote follow-up, treatment-cycle characterization, and exploratory trial measurement, provided that outputs remain domain-specific, respiratory safety is protected, and abnormal signals undergo human clinical review.
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.