Brainstem Reflexes in Idiopathic Cervical Dystonia: Does Medullary Dysfunction Play a Role?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurophysiological markers in dystonia have so far not been sistematically applied in clinical practice due to limited reproducibility of results and low correlations with clinical findings. Exceptions might be represented by the blink reflex (BR), including its recovery cycle (BRRC) and the trigemino-cervical reflex (TCR) which, compared to other neurophysiological methods, have shown more consistent alterations in cervical dystonia (CD). However, a comparison between the two techniques, and their possible correlation with disease symptoms, have not been thoroughly investigated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of BR, BRCC and TCR in the pathophysiology of idiopathic cervical dystonia. METHODS: Fourteen patients and 14 age-matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited. Neurophysiological outcome measures included latency of R1 and R2 components of the BR, R2 amplitude, BRRC, latency and amplitude of P19/N31 complex of TCR. Clinical and demographic features of patients were also collected, including age at disease onset, disease duration, presence of tremor, sensory trick and pain. The Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale was used to characterize dystonia. RESULTS: Compared to HC, CD patients showed increased latency of the BR R2 and decreased suppression of the BRRC. They also showed increased latency of the P19 and decreased amplitude of P19/N31 complex of TCR. The latency of P19 component of TCR was positively correlated with disease duration. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that the increased latency of R2 and P19 observed here might be reflective of brainstem dysfunction, mediated either by local interneuronal excitability changes or by subtle structural damage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".