A teaching videotape for the assessment of essential tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Teaching videotapes, developed to aid in the evaluation of several movement disorders, have not been used in essential tremor research. As part of the Washington Heights-Inwood Genetic Study of Essential Tremor (WHIGET), we developed a reliable and valid tremor rating scale. Because this rating scale is currently being used by investigators at other centers, we developed a teaching videotape to aid in the consistent application of this scale. OBJECTIVE: To develop a teaching videotape for a revised version of the WHIGET Tremor Rating Scale and to assess the interrater agreement among raters who used this videotape to rate tremor. METHODS: The revised WHIGET Tremor Rating Scale was used to rate action tremor from 0 to 4 during six tests: arm extension, pouring, drinking, using a spoon, finger-to-nose, and drawing spirals. A 22-minute teaching videotape was developed that includes a 29-item educational section and a self-assessment section consisting of 20 examples of tremor ratings chosen by the two WHIGET study neurologists. Eight raters, including senior movement disorder specialists, movement disorder fellows, general neurologists, and a movement disorder nurse practitioner, independently viewed the videotape and rated tremor during the self-assessment section. Interobserver reliability was assessed with weighted kappa statistics (kappa(w)). RESULTS: Eight raters each rated 20 items (160 ratings total). Total kappa(w) was 0.97 (nearly perfect agreement). Interrater reliability was as follows: kappa(w) = 0.99 (movement disorder specialists), kappa(w) = 0.98 (movement disorder fellows), and kappa(w) = 0.97 (general neurologists); all kappa(w) were nearly perfect. CONCLUSIONS: This teaching videotape may be used to improve the uniform application of the revised WHIGET Tremor Rating Scale by raters with various levels of experience in movement disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.008 |
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".