<scp>DYT‐TUBB4A</scp> (<scp>DYT4</scp> Dystonia): Clinical Anthology of 11 Cases and Systematized Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background DYT‐TUBB4A, formerly known as DYT4, has not been comprehensively described as only one large family and three individual cases have been published. We have recently described an in depth genetic and protein structural analysis of eleven additional cases from four families with four new pathogenic variants. We aim to report on the phenomenology of these cases suffering from DYT‐TUBB4A and to perform a comprehensive review of the clinical presentation and treatment responses of all DYT‐TUBB4A cases reported in the literature. Cases and Literature Review The clinical picture was typically characterized by laryngeal dystonia (more than three quarters of all cases), associated with cervical dystonia, upper limb dystonia and frequent generalization. Extension of the dystonia to the lower limbs, creating the famous “hobby horse” gait, was present in more than 20% of cases (in only one of ours). Globus pallidus pars interna (GPi) deep brain stimulation (DBS), performed in 4 cases, led to a good improvement with greatest benefit in motoric and less benefit in laryngeal symptoms. Medical treatment was generally rather poorly effective, except some benefit from propranolol, tetrabenazine and alcohol intake. Conclusion Laryngeal involvement is a hallmark of DYT‐TUBB4A. Symptomatic treatment with GPi‐DBS led to the greatest benefit in motoric symptoms. Nevertheless, TUBB4A mutations remain an exceedingly rare cause of laryngeal or other isolated dystonia and regular screening of TUBB4A mutations for isolated dystonias has a very low yield.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".