The history of progressive myoclonus epilepsies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of the progressive myoclonus epilepsies (PMEs) spans more than a century. However, the recent history of PMEs begins with a consensus statement published in the wake of the Marseille PME workshop in 1989 (Marseille Consensus Group, 1990). This consensus helped define the various types of PME known at the time and set the agenda for a new era of genetic research which soon lead to the discovery of many PME genes. Prior to the Marseille meeting, and before the molecular era, there had been much confusion and controversy. Because investigators had but limited and biased experience with these rare disorders due to the uneven, skewed distribution of PMEs around the world, opinions and nosologies were based on local expertise which did not match well with the experiences of other researchers and clinicians. The three major areas of focus included: (1) the nature and limits of the concept of PME in varying scopes, which was greatly debated; (2) the description of discrete clinical entities by clinicians; and (3) the description of markers (pathological, biological, neurophysiological, etc.) which could lead to a precise diagnosis of a given PME type, with, in the best cases, a reliable correlation with clinical findings. In this article, we shall also examine the breakthroughs achieved in the wake of the 1989 Marseille meeting and recent history in the field, following the identification of several PME genes. As in other domains, the molecular and genetic approach has challenged some established concepts and has led to the description of new PME types. However, as may already be noted, this approach has also confirmed the existence of the major, established types of PME, which can now be considered as true diseases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".