Opinions and clinical practices related to diagnosing and managing functional (psychogenic) movement disorders: changes in the last decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is large variability in the diagnostic approach and clinical management in functional movement disorders (FMD). This study aimed to examine whether opinions and clinical practices related to FMD have changed over the past decade. METHODS: Adapted from a 2008 version, we repeated the survey to members of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS). RESULTS: In all, 864/7689 responses (denominator includes non-neurologists) were received from 92 countries. Respondents were more often male (55%), younger than 45 (65%) and from academic practices (85%). Although the likelihood of ordering neurological investigations prior to delivering a diagnosis of FMD was nearly as high as in 2008 (47% vs. 51%), the percentage of respondents communicating the diagnosis without requesting additional tests increased (27% vs. 19%; P = 0.003), with most envisioning their role as providing a diagnosis and coordinating management (57% vs. 40%; P < 0.001). Compared to patients with other disorders, 64% of respondents were more concerned about missing a diagnosis of another neurological disorder. Avoiding iatrogenic harm (58%) and educating patients about the diagnosis (53%) were again rated as the most effective therapeutic options. Frequent treatment barriers included lack of physician knowledge and training (32%), lack of treatment guidelines (39%), limited availability of referral services (48%) and cultural beliefs about psychological illnesses (50%). The preferred term for communication favored 'functional' over 'psychogenic' (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and management of FMDs have changed over the past decade. Important gaps remain in access to treatment and in the education of neurologists about the inclusionary approach to FMD diagnosis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".