MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Waiting Room: neurological observations made outside the movement disorder specialist’s consulting office

2019· review· en· W2921678274 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingClothingBreathingMovement disordersPsychologyMovement (music)MedicineNeurological examinationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical emergencyPsychiatryHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neurological examination should always begin before the patient enters the doctor's office. Movement disorders in particular lend themselves to a spot diagnosis. In today's busy buzzing world, it seems wasteful not to make use of the various diagnostic clues that can be picked up readily while the patient is still in the waiting room. We present several illustrative examples, drawn from the literature and from our own experience. These are divided according to the different waiting room 'stages': the patient sitting in the waiting room, the response on being summoned to enter the consulting room-including rising from the chair, exchanging initial pleasantries and the way of walking. We also discuss the importance of paying attention to the patient's behaviour, clothing, posture, breathing patterns, facial expression and major gait abnormalities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.203 · 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