MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079332416 · doi:10.1212/wnl.62.1.125

Evaluation of the pull test technique in assessing postural instability in Parkinson’s disease

2004· article· en· W2079332416 on OpenAlexaff
Renato P. Munhoz, J. -Y. Li, Milena Kurtinecz, Panida Piboolnurak, Anne Constantino, Stanley Fahn, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostural instabilityParkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyTest (biology)MedicinePsychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variability in pull test (PT) performance can lead to inadequate evaluation of postural instability in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Assessing 66 PTs by 25 examiners, at least two of four raters agreed that specific items were performed incorrectly for stance in 27.3%, for strength and briskness of the pull in 84.9%, for examiner's response in 36.4%, and for technique issues in 9.1%. Examiners were consistent in their errors, and only 9% of examinations were error-free.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207