Inpatient Treatment of Functional Neurological Disorder: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this scoping review is to describe the characteristics of patients requiring admission to hospital for functional neurological disorder (FND), assess interventions provided, and evaluate outcomes in the context of acute hospital presentation or elective admission with chronic symptoms (>3 months). METHODS: A scoping review was performed. Included articles described adult patients admitted with FND to an inpatient care setting. Articles focusing on psychogenic non-epileptic attacks (PNEA) were excluded. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1963 citations. A total of 34 articles met inclusion criteria, with 458 patients (66% female) described. The pooled mean age of patients in all studies was 40.6 years. Eleven studies described patients with acute presentation, and 16 studies described patients with chronic FND symptoms admitted to the hospital. Motor symptoms were most common. Interventions were most commonly physiotherapy and psychotherapy. Most studies reported partial or complete resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review summarizes the literature on the characteristics of patients admitted to the hospital, both with acute and chronic symptoms, for inpatient treatment of FND. When comparing patients with acute to those with chronic symptoms, we found that acute presentations were older (46.9 vs. 43.7 years) and had a higher representation of men (33% vs. 30%). Those presenting with chronic symptoms were more likely to not improve or relapse. We postulate that early diagnosis and inpatient rehabilitation could have a positive impact on outcomes for patients with FND.
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 | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".