Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the progress made in the area of psychogenic movement disorders (PMDs) over the past 2 years, and a simplified classification of diagnostic certainty is proposed that incorporates electrophysiological assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have demonstrated altered blood flow in conversion disorders that may reflect changes in synaptic activity. Electrophysiological testing shows limitations in distinguishing between psychogenic and organic propriospinal myoclonus and dystonia. Recent evidence cautions against the uncritical acceptance of all cases of posttraumatic myoclonus and 'jumpy stump' as being organic in nature. 'Essential palatal tremor' is recognized as a rather heterogeneous group of tremors that includes psychogenic tremor. Two recent studies evaluating the long-term prognosis of psychogenic tremor differ in the degree of unfavorable outcome. Different groups of PMDs might have distinctive gait characteristics with prognostic, diagnostic, or therapeutic value. Two recent reviews provide comprehensive information on the understudied area of PMDs in children. SUMMARY: The diagnosis of PMDs should not be regarded as a diagnosis of exclusion. Careful clinical assessment is critical, and imaging or electrophysiological studies may provide important insights and confirmation of the diagnosis though some cases remain challenging and current assessments fail to provide needed clarification. Treatment is often delayed, contributing to a largely unfavorable long-term outcome. Well designed randomized control trials that validate and compare therapeutic options are urgently required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".