MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090139347 · doi:10.1212/wnl.57.6.1013

Prolonged orbicularis oculi activity

2001· article· en· W2090139347 on OpenAlexaff
Viorika Tozlovanu, Robert Forget, Andreea Iancu, Dan Boghen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrbicularis oculi muscleEye movementPersistence (discontinuity)MedicinePsychologyOphthalmologyAnatomyAudiologyEyelid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Apraxia of lid opening (ALO) is a nonparalytic inability to open the eyes at will in the absence of visible contraction of the orbicularis oculi (OOc) muscle. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that sustained activity of the OOc is a major factor in the difficulty in opening the eyes in this condition. METHODS: Lid movement detected in an electromagnetic field and electromyogram activity of the septal and pretarsal portions of the OOc were recorded in 12 healthy control subjects and 12 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ALO. The latencies to onset and to complete eye opening and the time during which eye opening was sustained were measured and analyzed in relation to OOc activity. RESULTS: The lid opening latencies and the lid movement duration were significantly increased in patients compared with control values. An abnormal persistence of OOc activity was present in 10 of the 11 patients with a delay in complete lid opening. The complete lid opening delay showed a strong positive correlation with the time it took to inhibit the OOc activity. This relationship fit the same linear regression in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ALO show significant delays in eye opening. An abnormal persistence of OOc activity, detectable electromyographically but not clinically, could be the main factor contributing to the delay in lid opening in these patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations44
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207