The long-term outcome of orthostatic tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Orthostatic tremor is a rare condition characterised by high-frequency tremor that appears on standing. Although the essential clinical features of orthostatic tremor are well established, little is known about the natural progression of the disorder. We report the long-term outcome based on the largest multicentre cohort of patients with orthostatic tremor. METHODS: Clinical information of 68 patients with clinical and electrophysiological diagnosis of orthostatic tremor and a minimum follow-up of 5 years is presented. RESULTS: There was a clear female preponderance (76.5%) with a mean age of onset at 54 years. Median follow-up was 6 years (range 5-25). On diagnosis, 86.8% of patients presented with isolated orthostatic tremor and 13.2% had additional neurological features. At follow-up, seven patients who initially had isolated orthostatic tremor later developed further neurological signs. A total 79.4% of patients reported worsening of orthostatic tremor symptoms. These patients had significantly longer symptom duration than those without reported worsening (median 15.5 vs 10.5 years, respectively; p=0.005). There was no change in orthostatic tremor frequency over time. Structural imaging was largely unremarkable and dopaminergic neuroimaging (DaTSCAN) was normal in 18/19 cases. Pharmacological treatments were disappointing. Two patients were treated surgically and showed improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Orthostatic tremor is a progressive disorder with increased disability although tremor frequency is unchanged over time. In most cases, orthostatic tremor represents an isolated syndrome. Drug treatments are unsatisfactory but surgery may hold promise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".