Congenital mirror movements: lack of decussation of pyramids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, We have read with great interest the article published by Gallea et al. (2013), in the November 2013 issue of Brain , regarding the pathophysiological basis of the rare disease named congenital mirror movements (Srour et al. , 2010; Depienne et al. , 2012), that might serve as a model to recognize new aspects of bimanual motor control (Gallea et al. , 2011). We have recently seen a patient with congenital mirror movements and have coincidently studied this disorder using a clinical, neurophysiological and neuroimaging protocol similar to those used by Gallea et al. (2013). This case was presented as a video session at the 5th Meeting of the Movement Disorders Scientific Department of the Brazilian Academy of Neurology, in August 2013, but has not yet been published. Our patient is a 32-year-old right-handed male, with synkinetic distal movements of distal limbs since early childhood, with stable course, and no other movement disorders or neurological abnormalities. The involuntary movements led him to labour impairment as he works as a postman and has difficulties in performing bimanual tasks such as writing on a clipboard or handling a mobile telephone or keyboard. Interestingly, a late acquisition of running abilities was his only neurodevelopmental delay; his parents reporting a preference for jumping instead of running in early childhood \[which may be similar to the Kanga mice hopping gait, with spontaneous mutation in the deleted in colorectal carcinoma ( Dcc ) gene\] (Finger et al. , 2002). His clinical manifestations were classified in the Woods and Teuber Mirror Movements Scale (Woods and Teuber, 1978) as …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".