Psychogenic facial movement disorders: Clinical features and associated conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The facial phenotype of psychogenic movement disorders has not been fully characterized. Seven tertiary-referral movement disorders centers using a standardized data collection on a computerized database performed a retrospective chart review of psychogenic movement disorders involving the face. Patients with organic forms of facial dystonia or any medical or neurological disorder known to affect facial muscles were excluded. Sixty-one patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for psychogenic facial movement disorders (91.8% females; age: 37.0 ± 11.3 years). Phasic or tonic muscular spasms resembling dystonia were documented in all patients most commonly involving the lips (60.7%), followed by eyelids (50.8%), perinasal region (16.4%), and forehead (9.8%). The most common pattern consisted of tonic, sustained, lateral, and/or downward protrusion of one side of the lower lip with ipsilateral jaw deviation (84.3%). Ipsi- or contralateral blepharospasm and excessive platysma contraction occurred in isolation or combined with fixed lip dystonia (60.7%). Spasms were reported as painful in 24.6% of cases. Symptom onset was abrupt in most cases (80.3%), with at least 1 precipitating psychological stress or trauma identified in 57.4%. Associated body regions involved included upper limbs (29.5%), neck (16.4%), lower limbs (16.4%), and trunk (4.9%). There were fluctuations in severity and spontaneous exacerbations and remissions (60%). Prevalent comorbidities included depression (38.0%) and tension headache (26.4%). Fixed jaw and/or lip deviation is a characteristic pattern of psychogenic facial movement disorders, occurring in isolation or in combination with other psychogenic movement disorders or other psychogenic features.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".