Validation of a self‐completed Dystonia Non‐Motor Symptoms Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To develop and validate a novel 14‐item self‐completed questionnaire (in English and German) enquiring about the presence of non‐motor symptoms (NMS) during the past month in patients with craniocervical dystonia in an international multicenter study. Methods The Dystonia Non‐Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (DNMSQuest) covers seven domains including sleep, autonomic symptoms, fatigue, emotional well‐being, stigma, activities of daily living, sensory symptoms. The feasibility and clinimetric attributes were analyzed. Results Data from 194 patients with CD (65.6% female, mean age 58.96 ± 12.17 years, duration of disease 11.95 ± 9.40 years) and 102 age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (66.7% female, mean age 55.67 ± 17.62 years) were collected from centres in Germany and the UK. The median total NMS score in CD patients was 5 (interquartile range 3–7), significantly higher than in healthy controls with 1 (interquartile range 0.75–2.25) ( P < 0.001, Mann–Whitney U ‐test). Evidence for intercorrelation and convergent validity is shown by moderate to high correlations of total DNMSQuest score with motor symptom severity (TWSTRS: r s = 0.61), clinical global impression ( r s = 0.40), and health‐related quality of life measures: CDQ‐24 ( r s = 0.74), EQ‐5D index ( r s = −0.59), and scale ( r s = −0.49) (all P < 0.001). Data quality and acceptability was very satisfactory. Interpretation The DNMSQuest, a patient self‐completed questionnaire for NMS assessment in CD patients, appears robust, reproducible, and valid in clinical practice showing a tangible impact of NMS on quality of life in CD. As there is no specific, comprehensive, validated tool to assess the burden of NMS in dystonia, the DNMSQuest can bridge this gap and could easily be integrated into clinical practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".