MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588212136 · doi:10.1002/mds.25562

From psychogenic movement disorder to functional movement disorder: It's time to change the name

2013· review· en· W1588212136 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychogenic diseaseEponymConversion disorderTerm (time)PsychologyEtiologyMovement (music)Movement disordersArgument (complex analysis)PolitenessPsychiatryCognitive psychologyMedicinePhilosophyDiseaseLinguisticsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successive attempts at rebranding may be behind at least some of the proliferation of terms we have at our disposal when describing patients with what are now most often referred to as "psychogenic," "conversion," or "somatoform" symptoms. The most popular term in the movement disorder literature, "psychogenic," provides the aetiology of the disorder within the name, indicating that the symptoms are "born of the mind." Here we argue that it is logical to stop using a term that defines the disorder with regard to a poorly defined aetiology that is not supported by current evidence, and, instead, to use a broad term-functional-not as a "polite eponym" but as a term that is freer from such assumptions and does not reinforce dualistic thinking. The main argument for change is not political or even practical, but scientific.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.019

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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