Inhibition of the primary motor cortex and the upgoing thumb sign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The upgoing thumb sign has been frequently observed in patients with minor strokes and transient ischemic attacks as an indicator of brain involvement. We assessed the effect of primary motor cortex (M1) inhibition in the development of the upgoing thumb sign. METHODS: Used repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS, 1 Hz frequency for 15 min, 1s ISI, 900 pulses) at 60% of resting motor threshold to inhibit the right or left primary motor cortex of 10 healthy individuals. Participants were examined before and after rTMS by a neurologist who was blind to the site of motor cortex inhibition. RESULTS: 10 neurological intact participants (5 women/5 men) were recruited for this study. 2 cases were excluded due to pre-existing possible thumb signs. After the inhibition of the primary motor cortex, in 6 subjects out of 8, we observed a thumb sign contralateral to the site of primary motor cortex inhibition. In one subject an ipsilateral thumbs sign was noted. In another case, we did not find an upgoing thumb sign. CONCLUSION: The upgoing thumb sign is a subtle neurological finding that may be related to the primary motor cortex or corticospinal pathways involvements.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".