MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136857764 · doi:10.1093/brain/awab131

The neuroimaging evidence of brain abnormalities in functional movement disorders

2021· review· en· W3136857764 on OpenAlexafffund
Sanskriti Sasikumar, Antonio P. Strafella

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeuroimagingNeuroscienceMovement disordersFunctional movementFunctional imagingPsychologyFunctional neuroimagingSense of agencyFunctional connectivityCognitive reframingCognitive psychologyDiseaseMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychotherapistPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroimaging has been pivotal in identifying and reframing our understanding of functional movement disorders. If accessible, it compensates for the limitations of the clinical exam and is especially useful where there is overlap of functional symptoms with classical presentations of disease. Imaging in functional movement disorders has increasingly identified structural and functional abnormalities that implicate hypoactivation of the cortical and subcortical motor pathways and increased modulation by the limbic system. Neurobiological theories suggest an impaired sense of agency, faulty top-down regulation of motor movement and abnormal emotional processing in these individuals. This framework challenges our traditional understanding of functional movement disorders as distinct from the deceptive term of 'organic' diseases and proposes that these conditions are not considered as mutually exclusive. This update summarizes the literature to date and explores the role of imaging in the diagnosis of functional movement disorders and in detecting its underlying molecular network.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207