Nonmotor symptoms in primary adult‐onset cervical dystonia and blepharospasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The nature and frequency of nonmotor symptoms in primary adult-onset cervical dystonia (CD) and blepharospasm (BSP) patients in Chinese populations remain unknown. METHODS: Hamilton's Depression Scale (HAMD), Hamilton's Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Epworth Sleepiness Scale were used to evaluate NMS in 120 patients with primary focal adult-onset dystonia (60 with BSP and 60 with CD) and 60 age-, sex-, and education level- matched healthy controls (HCs). Motor symptoms of BSP and CD patients were evaluated by Jankovic rating scale and Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale-severity scale separately. RESULTS: Twenty patients had depression, and 29 patients had anxiety. The mean HAMD and HAMA scores were significantly higher in patient groups. Thirty-six patients had cognitive decline based on the cut-off score of 75. The total score and scores of each domain of ACE-R were significantly lower in patient groups than that in HCs. Quality of sleep was impaired in patient groups, and patients with CD had worse quality of sleep than patients with BSP. Thirty-three BSP patients and 43 CD patients suffered from sleep disorder separately. The frequency of excessive daytime sleepiness did not differ between patients and HCs. No significant correlation was found between NMS and motor severity in the two forms of dystonia. CONCLUSIONS: Current study suggests that NMS are prevalent in Chinese CD and BSP patients, and the motor severity of dystonia did not contribute to the severity of nonmotor symptoms. Assessment of nonmotor symptoms should be considered in clinical management of focal dystonia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".