Reduced Intracortical and Interhemispheric Inhibitions in Corticobasal Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracortical inhibitory and facilitatory circuits, interhemispheric inhibitory circuits and corticospinal excitability for both distal and proximal muscles were investigated in seven patients with corticobasal syndrome (CBS) and seven healthy volunteers. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was performed with surface electromyogram recorded from first dorsal interosseous muscle and biceps brachii muscle on both sides in patients and the on right side in controls. Motor thresholds and motor-evoked potential recruitment curves in both muscles at rest and during contraction were not significantly different between CBS and controls, although there was a trend for higher threshold on the more affected side in first dorsal interosseous in CBS. CBS patients had loss of short-interval intracortical inhibition bilaterally in distal and proximal muscles, reduced transcallosal inhibition from both hemispheres measured by ipsilateral silent period and paired pulse method in first dorsal interosseous, and by ipsilateral silent period in biceps brachii. Intracortical facilitation and contralateral silent period duration were not significantly changed. In conclusion, CBS patients had deficits in intracortical and interhemispheric inhibition in the representations for both distal and proximal upper limb muscles bilaterally with relative sparing of motor cortical output pathways.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".