MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096056167 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.12174

Dystonic Pseudo Foot Drop

2015· article· en· W2096056167 on OpenAlex
Camila Aquino, Elizabeth Slow, Anthony E. Lang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDystoniaFoot dropPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineFoot (prosody)WeaknessLevodopaGaitParkinson's diseasePhysical therapyDiseaseSurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most common presentation of foot dystonia in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) or dystonia is inversion of the foot accompanied by flexion of the toes, with or without extension of the hallux. Less commonly, foot dystonia may mimic foot drop, as occurs with weakness of the dorsiflexors muscles, resulting in a pseudo foot drop. This has rarely been reported in the literature and has been poorly recognized, often leading to misdiagnosis and unnecessary investigations and treatment. We report 5 patients with dystonic pseudo foot drop, one of them diagnosed with early-onset PD, 2 with sporadic PD, and 2 with dystonia. Despite the steppage gait, their physical exam revealed normal strength, and no other explanation for a "foot drop" was found. It is important to recognize this phenomenology, which can be a clue to the diagnosis of early-onset PD, and may be responsive to levodopa in selected 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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.330 · 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