MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136340255 · doi:10.1002/mds.23994

Stereotypies: A critical appraisal and suggestion of a clinically useful definition

2011· review· en· W2136340255 on OpenAlex

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 · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsTicsStereotypyPsychologySet (abstract data type)Term (time)Movement disordersClinical PracticeCognitive psychologyCritical appraisalPsychotherapistPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscienceComputer sciencePhysical therapyAlternative medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The foundations of the clinical classification of movement disorders rest on the precise definition of the words used to describe the disorders. Here we argue that the current use of the term stereotypy falls well short of the precision needed for either clinical or academic use, and fails both to provide a clinically useful diagnostic category and to define a set of conditions that are linked pathophysiologically. The difficulty in defining this concept is not a new one as our review of the history of the term demonstrates. We synthesise this historical background, explore why clinicians have felt it necessary to use the category of stereotypy for certain movements rather than the related category of tics, discuss the multiple uses of the term in current research and clinical practice and on this basis suggest a new definition and classification.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.285 · 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