The final blink: intact eyeblink conditioning in isolated dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structured Abstract Background Impaired eyeblink conditioning is often cited as evidence for cerebellar dysfunction in isolated dystonia yet the results from individual studies are conflicting and underpowered. Objective To systematically examine the influence of dystonia, dystonia subtype and clinical features over eyeblink conditioning within a statistical model which controlled for the covariates age and sex. Methods Original neurophysiological data from all published studies were shared to an age and sex matched control group. Two raters blinded to participant identity scored all recordings (6732 trials). After higher inter-rater agreement was confirmed, mean conditioning per block was entered into a mixed repetitive measures model. Results Much variability of eyeblink conditioning was seen in both groups. All dystonia versus controls showed no difference in conditioning (p=0.517). Analysis of dystonia subgroup, with age and sex as covariates did not reveal evidence that eyeblink conditioning is impaired in specific subtypes (cervical dystonia, DYT- TOR1A , DYT- THAP1 or focal hand dystonia). The presence of tremor did not significantly influence levels of eyeblink conditioning. Conclusions Collaborative efforts such as this article allow larger number of patients to be evaluated and provide more balanced estimates of disease effects over experimental outcomes. Intact eyeblink conditioning is against a global cerebellar learning deficit in isolated dystonia. Precise mechanisms for how the cerebellum interplays mechanistically with other key neuroanatomical nodes within the dystonic network remains an open research question.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".