New insights into the neural basis of functional movement disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional movement disorders (FMDs) encompass a broad range of abnormal movements (e.g., tremor, dystonia, myoclonus, and parkinsonism) that are clinically inconsistent with known neurologic diseases. Although they account for 16% of new referrals to neurology clinics,1 the pathophysiology of FMDs is poorly understood. In addition, FMDs represent a serious challenge for clinicians in terms of diagnosis and management. One of the key clinical features of FMDs is that the abnormal movements can be eliminated by distraction maneuvers.2 Susceptibility to distraction is typical of voluntary movements, and yet patients with FMDs report that the movements are not under their control. This discrepancy between behavioral findings and patient reports may indicate that the symptoms are feigned or that there is a disruption in the brain processes related to self-agency, the subjective sense of controlling one's actions. A behavioral analogue of self-agency may be alexithymia (impaired ability to read one's own emotional state), which is also found among those with FMDs.3
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".