Suggestibility as a valuable criterion for laboratory-supported definite functional movement disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the application of suggestibility in electrophysiologic studies as a tool to increase the diagnostic certainty of "laboratory-supported definite" FMD. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electrophysiologic studies performed in our center on patients with FMD. Recordings where suggestibility was included in the test battery were then selected. RESULTS: We present three cases with equivocal clinical features, but with findings on electrophysiologic studies that were consistent with "laboratory-supported definite" FMD. CONCLUSION: When combined with other tests, demonstration of suggestibility in electrophysiologic studies may increase the accuracy in differentiating functional from organic movement disorders. SIGNIFICANCE: This case series is an essential first step in evaluating the applicability of suggestibility as an electrophysiologic criterion to aid in the diagnosis of FMD. Application in a larger cohort, incorporation in a test battery, and validation studies, including quantitative evaluation of suggestibility, are required to assess the reliability and the added value of this test.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".