MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1158625214 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000000212

Movement disorders emergencies

2015· review· en· W1158625214 on OpenAlexaff
Renato P. Munhoz, Laura Scorr, Stewart A. Factor

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoreaMovement disordersMedicineDystoniaTicsParkinsonismIntensive care medicineMyoclonusDiseasePediatricsPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although movement disorders are traditionally viewed as chronic diseases that are followed electively, a growing number of these patients present with acute, severe syndromes or complications of their underlying neurological problem. Identifying and managing movement disorders emergencies is challenging, even for the specialist. This review summarizes evidence outlining the clinical presentation of acute, life-threatening movement disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: We review the most significant aspects in the most common movement disorders emergencies, including acute complications related to Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism, serotonergic, and neuroleptic malignant syndromes, chorea, ballismus, dystonia, myoclonus, and tics. SUMMARY: The increasing amount of information delineating the descriptions of movement disorders emergencies provides means for more effective prevention, identification, and management for the nonspecialist. Although the commonest of these syndromes eventually have a good outcome, serious conditions such as neuroleptic malignant syndrome and status dystonicus may induce substantial rates of morbidity and mortality. This review re-emphasizes the need for their prompt identification and management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207