Relationship between resting and action tremors in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between resting tremor (RT) and action tremor (AT) in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of RT and AT severity was conducted in 100 PD patients. The severity rating for each type of tremor in the upper extremities was assessed. The disparity in tremor severity between extremities for each tremor type was compared to that of the other two to identify commonalities in the laterality of the tremor manifestation. RESULTS: Overall, RT is predictive of AT on the same side, but not the opposing side of the body. Patients with less intense resting right upper limb (RRU) tremor and moderately intense RRU tremor were significantly more likely to have an action right upper limb (ARU) tremor (-1.53, P = 0.020; -1.88, P = 0.005, respectively). Similarly, patients with less intense resting left upper limb (RLU) tremor and moderately intense RLU tremors were significantly more likely to have an action left upper limb (ALU) tremor (-3.49, P = 0.000; -1.86, P = 0.017, respectively). In addition, RRU and ALU tremors were associated with an increase in RLU and ARU tremors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tremors are common findings in PD patients, and often impair quality of life. By identifying and classifying the relationship between resting and ATs in PD patients, our study sheds light onto the importance of better understanding and future management of this debilitating symptomology.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".