MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129109728 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.062950

Mirror movements in parkinsonism: evaluation of a new clinical sign

2005· article· en· W2129109728 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto J. Espay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease and Spinal Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParkinsonismMirroringRating scalePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyParkinson's diseaseMedicinePhysical therapyDiseaseDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mirror movements (MM) are not widely appreciated in parkinsonism and no report has evaluated this clinical sign in detail. OBJECTIVES: To define the parkinsonian clinical features associated with MM in patients with early, asymmetric parkinsonism. METHODS: Twenty seven patients with early Parkinson's disease were evaluated using a standardised videotaping protocol. MM were scored from blinded video assessment using a clinical scale that rates the amplitude, distribution, and proportion of mirroring in the less affected limb. Parkinsonian features were combined into axial and lateralised scores using related items of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. RESULTS: MM were present in 24 of 27 patients. There was a significant linear correlation between the degree of asymmetry of motor deficits and MM on the less affected side. The effect of asymmetry was greater when the proportional rather than the absolute motor difference between sides was largest. Asymmetry in leg rigidity was the most important examination feature in the prediction of contralateral foot mirroring. CONCLUSIONS: MM are a clinical feature of the unaffected or less affected side in mild asymmetric parkinsonism. Their presence may be a useful clinical finding in early parkinsonism.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations107
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicParkinson's Disease and Spinal DisordersFrench-language works237,207