Bibliographic record
Abstract
Status dystonicus is a movement disorder emergency that has been a source of controversy in terms of terminology, phenomenology, and management since it was first described in 1982. Here we argue that the current use of the term status dystonicus falls well short of the precision needed for either clinical or academic use. We performed a critical review on this topic, describing possible pathophysiological mechanisms and areas of uncertainties. This review also addresses the problems derived by the extreme clinical heterogeneity of this condition, as the lack of an objective criterion useful for the definition, or the fact that status dystonicus may present not only in the context of a known dystonic syndrome. We propose a new possible definition that includes not only dystonia but also other hyperkinetic movements in the wide range of movement disorders that can be seen during an episode. The new definition keeps the term status dystonicus and highlights the fact that this is a medical emergency based on the impairment of bulbar and/or respiratory function requiring hospital admission as the principal feature. Furthermore, the new definition should not consider as necessary unspecific features as patient's condition at baseline, the distribution of dystonia, occurrence of systemic symptoms such as fever or laboratory findings. We hope that this proposal will stimulate the debate on this subject among our peers, further developing a clinical and pathophysiological understanding of status dystonicus. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".