MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027923057 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-322569

Self-injurious behaviour in movement disorders: systematic review

2020· review· en· W3027923057 on OpenAlexaff
J. Fischer, Tina Mainka, Yulia Worbe, Tamara Pringsheim, Kailash P. Bhatia, Christos Ganos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersVolkswagen Foundation
KeywordsMovement disordersTourette syndromePsychological interventionMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-injurious behaviours (SIBs) are defined as deliberate, repetitive and persistent behaviours that are directed towards the body and lead to physical injury and are not associated with sexual arousal and without suicidal intent. In movement disorders, SIBs are typically associated with tic disorders, most commonly Tourette syndrome, and neurometabolic conditions, such as classic Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. However, beyond these well-known aetiologies, a range of other movement disorder syndromes may also present with SIBs, even though this clinical association remains less well-known. Given the scarcity of comprehensive works on this topic, here we performed a systematic review of the literature to delineate the spectrum of movement disorder aetiologies associated with SIBs. We report distinct aetiologies, which are clustered in five different categorical domains, namely, neurodevelopmental, neurometabolic and neurodegenerative disorders, as well as disorders with characteristic structural brain changes and heterogeneous aetiologies (eg, autoimmune and drug-induced). We also provide insights in the pathophysiology of SIBs in these patients and discuss neurobiological key risk factors, which may facilitate their manifestation. Finally, we provide a list of treatments, including practical measures, such as protective devices, as well as behavioural interventions and pharmacological and neurosurgical therapies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207