125 Hysterical Years - The Contribution of Charcot’s. (P1.297)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To make a brief review of Charcot's impact on the study of Hysteria and to correlate that with the work of prior and subsequent researches. BACKGROUND: In its most recent edition, the DSM-V defined a group of conditions as functional disorders. Patients can present with a wide range of pseudo-neurological signs that can be divided in three different groups: pseudo-localizing symptoms (weakness, sensory loss, visual deficits, and pain), psychogenic movement disorders, and non-epileptic seizures; all of them are classified as functional disorders. Further classification of functional disorders according to psychiatric evaluation also varies and includes somatoform disorders, somatization disorders, conversion, and dissociative disorders. Hysteria is a classical term that encompasses all of these psychopathological states. DESIGN/METHODS: A brief historical review of Charcot's sutdy of hysteria. RESULTS: Among his many studies, Charcot was also interested in hysteria (hysteroepilepsia) and hypnosis. In the late 1870s Charcot and the Salpêtriére´s School of Neurology defined hysteria as a neurological disease, with a non-visible “dynamic or functional lesion”. The very famous anatomo-clinical method had failed in demonstrating any neuropathological lesion. Charcot and his disciple Paul Richer defined that a hysteria attack (“grande hystérie”) was composed of four stages: 1- Epileptoid, 2- Contortions and acrobatic postures (Clownism), 3-Emotional gestures (“attitudes passionnelles”) and 4- final delirium. Most patients studied were women and Charcot also associated hysteria to sexual intercourse, or lack thereof. CONCLUSIONS: The study of hysteria was one of the great contributions of Professor Charcot to Neurology, and although his concepts concerning it were openly criticized at the time, nowadays a new interest in the study of this still somewhat unknown condition and its intersection with neuropsychiatry has resurfaced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".