Familial Aggregation and Co-Aggregation of Essential Tremor and Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current data suggest that the 2 common tremor disorders, essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD), may be associated with one another. Familial aggregation studies allow one to further explore their relatedness. METHODS: Probands with ET (n = 110), PD (n = 130) or both ET and PD (n = 27) and control probands (n = 177) reported whether they had relatives with these diseases or with non-specific tremor. RESULTS: A greater proportion of ET probands than control probands reported relatives with ET (30.0 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001), non-specific tremor (38.2 vs. 13.6%, p < 0.001) and both ET and PD in different relatives (6.4 vs. 0.6%, p = 0.004). A greater proportion of PD probands than control probands reported relatives with PD (20.0 vs. 8.5%, p = 0.003), ET (11.5 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.002) and both ET and PD in different relatives (6.9 vs. 0.6%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the aggregation of ET in ET families and PD in PD families, and the familial co-aggregation of ET and PD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".