Commentary on: Characteristics of two distinct clinical phenotypes in pathologically proven progressive supranuclear palsy: Richardson's syndrome and PSP–parkinsonism, by D. Williams, R. de Silva, D. Paviour, et al. (Brain-2004-01045.R1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When J. Clifford Richardson presented the first clinical report of eight cases of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) at the American Neurological Association meeting in June 1963, a number of eminent discussants felt that the condition must be rare, and wondered whether a toxic aetiology might be responsible, as the cases were clustered in Ontario, Canada. With impressive foresight, Richardson remarked: ‘I doubt very much that there is any local geographic incidence. I expect that a good many cases of the same disease will be identified in other areas’ (Steele, 1992). Fast-forward 40 years, and the prevalence of PSP has been established by two community-based UK studies to be at least 5 per 100 000 (Schrag et al ., 1999; Nath et al ., 2001). The clinical picture of PSP, at least in its full-blown form, is now readily recognized by neurologists the world over (Burn and Lees, 2002). The patient has a fixed Mona Lisa stare, with a very low blink frequency, the head is retracted and speech is reduced to a distinctive slurred growl. The patient walks clumsily and unsteadily, with a marked tendency to fall backwards. Clothes are soiled with spilled food because the patient is unable to look at the plate when eating and also has dysphagia. Motor recklessness is an early feature of the condition, as are personality change and behavioural disturbance. Pathologically, PSP is characterized by the destruction …
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".