MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988447838 · doi:10.1177/0883073809346847

A Case of Secondary Dystonia Responding to Levodopa

2009· article· en· W1988447838 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Bernard, Michel Vanasse, Sylvain Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDystoniaLevodopaBasal gangliaTrihexyphenidylMedicineCarbidopaGlobus pallidusPsychologyMovement disordersEtiologyTetrabenazinePediatricsAnesthesiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseParkinson's diseaseInternal medicinePsychiatryCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report a patient with dystonia secondary to bilateral lesions of the basal ganglia, who improved dramatically with levodopa. The patient presented at the age of 4 years with progressive dystonia of the lower extremities and right upper extremity. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed bilateral hyperintensities of the globus pallidus that remained stable over the years. Despite extensive investigations, the etiology of her basal ganglia lesions remained nebulous. The patient's dystonia responded to Trihexyphenidyl and to tetrabenazine, but these medications needed to be stopped because of side effects. At the age of 12 years, small doses of levodopa-carbidopa were tried and resulted in dramatic improvement of her dystonia. The authors believe that in the pediatric population with secondary dystonias other than Segawa disease, even though this has been reported only rarely to be effective, a therapeutic trial with levodopa should be considered in some instances.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207