Head Tremor in Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical characteristics, natural history, and therapeutic outcome of patients with cervical dystonia (CD) with head tremor (HT+) and without head tremor (HT-). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 114 consecutive patients of CD over a 9-month period with a detailed questionnaire. Chi-square and t-tests were employed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-eight (68.4%) patients had head tremor and 27 of them (34.6%) had tremor as one of the first symptoms. Age at onset of symptoms were similar in HT+ and HT- groups; however there was a higher prevalence in women in the former group (66.7% vs. 41.7%; p=0.01). HT+ patients had more frequent positive family history of essential-like hand/head tremor (21.8% vs. 5.5%; p<0.05), associated neck pain (92.3% vs. 77.8%: p<0.05), and essential-like hand tremor (40% vs. 8.3%; p<0.001). They also appeared to have more frequent history of preceding head/neck trauma (14.1% vs. 8.3%), frequent head rotation (88.5% vs. 69.4%) and antecollis (12.8% vs. 5.5%) but less often head tilt (37.2% vs. 47.2%) and gestes antagonistes (60.2% vs. 75%) than the HT- patients; however these differences were not statistically significant. The frequency of prior psychiatric illnesses, the incidence of dystonias in other parts of the body, frequency of retrocollis and shoulder elevation, and spontaneous remission were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Head tremor is common in CD and is more commonly associated with hand tremor and family history of tremor or other movement disorders. This supports a possible genetic association between CD and essential tremor (ET). Linkage studies are required to evaluate the genetic association between CD and ET.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".