MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917688498 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2018-320039

Seizures and movement disorders: phenomenology, diagnostic challenges and therapeutic approaches

2019· review· en· W2917688498 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Eliza Freitas, Marta Ruíz-López, Josep Dalmau, Roberto Erro, Michael Privitera, Danielle M. Andrade, Alfonso Fasano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteParkinson's Clinic of Eastern Toronto & Movement Disorders CentreToronto Western HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement disordersEpilepsia partialis continuaEpilepsyDyskinesiaNeurosciencePsychologyPhenomenology (philosophy)PsychiatryMedicinePathologyDiseaseParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seizures and movement disorders (MDs) are distinct neurological conditions presenting with abnormal movements. Despite sharing an overlap in phenomenology, these movements have different origins. In order to explore the overlaps and the narrow boundaries between these two conditions, we performed a review of the literature to explore the risk of seizures in MDs. We discussed the mimics and chameleons including MDs that look like seizure (eg, paroxysmal dyskinesia, status dystonicus) and seizures that look like MDs (eg,epilepsia partialis continua, nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy). Additionally, we examined the therapeutic challenges as well as the anatomical and chemical pathways relevant in the interplay between epilepsy and MDs. Finally, we proposed an algorithm to guide clinicians towards the final diagnosis of conditions characterised by the co-occurrence of MDs and seizures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207