Prevalence of spontaneous oral dyskinesia in the elderly: A reappraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence and status of spontaneous oral dyskinesia (SOD), clinically defined as the presence of oral stereotypies of no apparent cause, remain controversial in the elderly. The reported high prevalence of SOD in institutionalized demented cases, the apparent similarity between SOD and tardive dyskinesia (TD), and the role of aging in both conditions, are used as arguments to minimise the prevalence of TD and causal role of antipsychotics. We observed 1,018 (69.3% women) noninstitutionalized, frail elderly subjects attending day care centers to document the prevalence and phenomenology of SOD. A total of 38 subjects, including 29 women, were suspected of having SOD, for a prevalence rate of 3.7% (95% confidence interval, 2.6-4.9%), 4.1% for women and 2.9% for men. A survey covering medical and dental issues was filled out by 508 volunteers. Subjects with suspected SOD reported more frequent ill-fitting dental devices (P = 0.002; odds ratio [OR] = 3.5), oral pain (P = 0.01; OR = 3.0), and a lower rate of perception of good oral health (P = 0.04; OR = 0.4) compared to nondyskinetics. Individuals with suspected SOD typically presented with mild stereotyped masticatory or labial movements compared to the more complex phenomenology of probable TD cases. Thus, SOD is comparatively infrequent in the elderly. The relation between its distinct orodental health profile and stereotyped manifestations warrants further attention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".