A Survey on the Impact of the Menstrual Cycle on Movement Disorders Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A possible influence of estrogens on the dopaminergic system has been hypothesized and investigated by several studies, and fluctuations in motor symptoms related to the menstrual cycle have been reported in some movement disorders patients. We designed a survey to quantify how frequently female patients with various movement disorders are affected by this phenomenon and its impact on symptom severity. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 104 women between 18- and 60-years-old diagnosed with movement disorders and regularly followed at our centre. RESULTS: From a total of 65 subjects who completed the questionnaire, 54 women reported the onset of their movement disorders before menopause. Twenty of them (37%) experienced changes in their movement disorders during the menstrual cycle. In particular, there was a significant worsening of symptom severity before (p=0.0005) and during menses (p=0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: The possible role of such changes should be taken into account when evaluating the efficacy of various therapeutic interventions in movement disorder patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".