Prolonged orbicularis oculi activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".