Clinical and Electromyographic Examinations of Patients with Essential Tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is believed that no clinical differences exist among essential, familial and senile tremor, or between the tremor with synchronous or alternating electromyographic activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and electromyographic findings in a large group of patients with different types of essential tremor. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty patients with sporadic, familial or senile variants of essential tremor were examined. According to the electromyographic activity recorded from the antagonistic muscles, the patients were subdivided into a group with synchronous (SYN) and a group with alternating (ALT) activity. The historical aspects of the disease were noted, and a detailed neurological examination was performed. RESULTS: A widespread tremor involving upper and lower limbs and 3-4 different anatomical regions was typical for familial tremor. It also had higher amplitude than the sporadic and senile tremor. ALT tremor had a higher amplitude and longer burst duration than SYN and more often involved lower limbs. Rest tremor was common in the ALT group. Overall, ALT tremor was more common than previously supposed. CONCLUSION: The familial and ALT tremors are more disabling than other types of essential tremor. Since electromyographic ALT activity is common in essential tremor, its presence does not reliably distinguish essential and Parkinsonian tremor.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".