What Can Different Motor Circuits Tell Us About Psychosis? An RDoC Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signs of motor dysfunction are evidenced across a range of psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia. Historically, these features have been neglected but emerging theoretical and methodological advancements have shed new light on the utility of considering movement abnormalities. Indeed, the National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria initiative has recently met to develop a Motor Systems Domain. This reflects a growing appreciation for the enhanced reliability and validity that can come along with evaluating disturbances relevant to psychiatric illnesses from multiple levels of analysis, and conceptualizing these domains with respect to the complexity of their role in a broader integrated system (ie, weighing contributions and interactions between the cognitive, affective, and motor domains). This article discusses motor behaviors and seeks to explain how research into basal ganglia, cerebellar, and cortico-motor circuit function/dysfunction, grounded in brain circuit-motor behavior relationships, can elucidate our understanding of pathophysiology, provide vital links to other key systems of interest, significantly improve identification and classification, and drive development of targeted individualized treatments.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it