The prevalence of primary dystonia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dystonia is a hyperkinetic movement disorder characterized by sustained muscle contractions that produce repetitive movements and abnormal postures. Specific information on the prevalence of dystonia has been difficult to establish because the existing epidemiological studies of the condition have adopted different methodologies for case ascertainment, resulting in widely differing reported prevalence. Medline and Embase databases were searched using terms specific to dystonia for studies of incidence, prevalence, and epidemiology. All population-based studies reporting an incidence and/or prevalence of primary dystonia were included. Sixteen original studies were included in our systematic review. Fifteen studies reported the prevalence of dystonia, including 12 service-based and three population-based studies. We performed a meta-analysis on the results of the service-based studies, and were able to combine data on the prevalence of several dystonia subtypes. From these studies, we calculated an overall prevalence of primary dystonia of 16.43 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.09-22.32). The prevalence of dystonia reported in the three population-based studies appears higher than that reported in the service-based studies. Only 1 of the 16 studies reported an incidence of cervical dystonia. This corresponded to a corrected incidence estimate of 1.07 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 0.86-1.32). Despite numerous studies on the epidemiology of dystonia, attempting to determine an accurate prevalence of the condition for health services planning remains a significant challenge. Given the methodological limitations of the existing studies, our own prevalence estimate of primary dystonia likely underestimates the true prevalence of the condition.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it