Transducer‐based evaluation of tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society established a task force on tremor that reviewed the use of transducer-based measures in the quantification and characterization of tremor. Studies of accelerometry, electromyography, activity monitoring, gyroscopy, digitizing tablet-based measures, vocal acoustic analysis, and several other transducer-based methods were identified by searching PubMed.gov. The availability, use, acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness were reviewed for each measure using the following criteria: (1) used in the assessment of tremor; (2) used in published studies by people other than the developers; and (3) adequate clinimetric testing. Accelerometry, gyroscopy, electromyography, and digitizing tablet-based measures fulfilled all three criteria. Compared to rating scales, transducers are far more sensitive to changes in tremor amplitude and frequency, but they do not appear to be more capable of detecting a change that exceeds random variability in tremor amplitude (minimum detectable change). The use of transducer-based measures requires careful attention to their limitations and validity in a particular clinical or research setting. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".