Diagnostic criteria for corticobasal syndrome: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are no well-established criteria for patients with corticobasal syndrome. The authors have attempted to clarify this area by comparing and applying three sets of well-known criteria (from Toronto, the Mayo Clinic and Cambridge). PATIENT AND METHODS: The authors first compared the three criteria for overlap and differences, and then applied them to a group of 40 consecutive patients (22 men, mean age 67 years) with focal cortical syndrome characterised by apraxia and Parkinsonism, at both the early stages and later in their illness. RESULTS: Despite an overall similarity, there were major differences in the criteria which affect their applicability. Cognitive impairment was ubiquitous even at presentation, with speech and language impairment the commonest feature. Some classic features, alien limb and myoclonus, were present in a minority only even late in their course. The three criteria were equally applicable to patients with advanced disease (Toronto 92.5%, Cambridge 90% and Mayo 87.5%). Thirty patients (75%) satisfied all three criteria. Using this group as a 'gold standard', 73.3% fulfilled the Cambridge criteria at presentation compared with 46.7% and 36.7% for the Toronto and Mayo Clinic criteria, respectively. Concordance between criteria was poor. CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment, especially language impairment, was prominent from onset of disease. The Cambridge criteria apply to a higher proportion of cases at an early stage of corticobasal syndrome. The authors suggest a minor modification to capture the high prevalence of aphasia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".