Somatosensory temporal discrimination in essential tremor and isolated head and voice tremors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the somatosensory temporal discrimination threshold in patients with essential tremor (sporadic and familial) and to evaluate whether somatosensory temporal discrimination threshold values differ depending on the body parts involved by tremor. We also investigated the somatosensory temporal discrimination in patients with isolated voice tremor. We enrolled 61 patients with tremor: 48 patients with essential tremor (31 patients with upper limb tremor alone, nine patients with head tremor alone, and eight patients with upper limb plus head tremor; 22 patients with familial vs. 26 sporadic essential tremor), 13 patients with isolated voice tremor, and 45 healthy subjects. Somatosensory temporal discrimination threshold values were normal in patients with familial essential tremor, whereas they were higher in patients with sporadic essential tremor. When we classified patients according to tremor distribution, somatosensory temporal discrimination threshold values were normal in patients with upper limb tremor and abnormal only in patients with isolated head tremor. Temporal discrimination threshold values were also abnormal in patients with isolated voice tremor. Somatosensory temporal discrimination processing is normal in patients with familial as well as in patients with sporadic essential tremor involving the upper limbs. By contrast, somatosensory temporal discrimination is altered in patients with isolated head tremor and voice tremor. This study with somatosensory temporal discrimination suggests that isolated head and voice tremors might possibly be considered as separate clinical entities from essential tremor.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".