Electrodiagnostic assessment of the autonomic nervous system: A consensus statement endorsed by the American Autonomic Society, American Academy of Neurology, and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of disorders of the autonomic nervous system is both an art and a science, calling upon the physician's most astute clinical skills as well as knowledge of autonomic neurology and physiology. Over the last three decades, the development of noninvasive clinical tests that assess the function of autonomic nerves, the validation and standardization of these tests, and the growth of a large body of literature characterizing test results in patients with autonomic disorders have equipped clinical practice further with a valuable set of objective tools to assist diagnosis and prognosis. This review, based on current evidence, outlines an international expert consensus set of recommendations to guide clinical electrodiagnostic autonomic testing. Grading and localization of autonomic deficits incorporates scores from sympathetic cardiovascular adrenergic, parasympathetic cardiovagal, and sudomotor testing, as no single test alone is sufficient to diagnose the degree or distribution of autonomic failure. The composite autonomic severity score (CASS) is a useful score of autonomic failure that is normalized for age and gender. Valid indications for autonomic testing include generalized autonomic failure, regional or selective system syndromes of autonomic impairment, peripheral autonomic neuropathy and ganglionopathy, small fiber neuropathy, orthostatic hypotension, orthostatic intolerance, syncope, neurodegenerative disorders, autonomic hyperactivity, and anhidrosis.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it