ReviewJournal of neurology2026
Current biomarker development in myotonic dystrophies.
Review in Journal of neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Myotonic dystrophies (DM) are autosomal dominant, multisystemic disorders characterized by myotonia and progressive muscle weakness. Extramuscular multisystem symptoms include involvement of the respiratory, cardiac and central nervous systems, and endocrine and autoimmune alterations. While there is significant overlap in key symptoms due to a shared molecular backbone of alternative splicing, DM1 and DM2 differ in genetic origin, disease progression, and aspects of molecular pathology. Currently, DM management focuses on symptoms, and the wide clinical variation leads to long diagnostic delay. This highlights the need for reliable biomarkers to aid diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring. As the understanding of molecular mechanisms in DM improves, new therapies are rapidly emerging, further emphasizing the need for reliable biomarkers to assess short- and long-term treatment efficacy. This review covers current biomarker research, including imaging-based, muscle-derived, and soluble liquid biopsy approaches. While established DM biomarkers are limited, with research disproportionately focused on DM1, multiple markers of alternative splicing pathology show promise. However, their reliance on invasive sampling restricts cohort size and longitudinal assessment. Consequently, efforts are shifting toward developing minimally invasive biomarkers. While some soluble markers, like muscle-specific circulating microRNAs, correlate with clinical measures, inconsistent detection, and limited evaluation of disease specificity point to the need for further research in larger, more diverse longitudinal cohorts. Future progress will depend on validating existing candidates, discovering new biomarkers addressing these limitations, and reducing the imbalance between DM1- and DM2-focused research to advance DM diagnosis, management, and therapy development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.