MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2165528939 · doi:10.1017/s031716710000322x

New Perspectives on Dystonia

2003· review· en· W2165528939 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mélanie Langlois, François Richer, Sylvain Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDystoniaDeep brain stimulationMedicineBotulinum toxinNeuroscienceBlepharospasmEtiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyDiseasePathologyParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dystonia is a syndrome of sustained muscular contractions with numerous underlying etiologies. This review examines the varied phenomenology of dystonias, its evolving classification including recent genetic data as well as its clinical investigation and treatment. Although age of onset, anatomical distribution and family history are key elements of the investigation of dystonia, classification increasingly relies on etiologic and genetic criteria. Physiological abnormalities in striato-cortical circuits are common in dystonia but the pathophysiology is still unclear. In recent years, a great deal has been learned on the more common primary dystonias such as primary torsion dystonia and on dystonia-plus syndromes such as dopamine responsive dystonia. Treatment of dystonia has also evolved and there are now a number of therapeutic agents with clear beneficial effects including anticholinergics, benzodiazepines, and botulinum toxin and there is growing interest in neurofunctional surgery including deep brain stimulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→