Task Force Consensus on Nosology and Cut‐Off Values for Axial Postural Abnormalities in Parkinsonism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is no consensus with regard to the nosology and cut-off values for postural abnormalities in parkinsonism. Objective: To reach a consensus regarding the nosology and cut-off values. Methods: Using a modified Delphi panel method, multiple rounds of questionnaires were conducted by movement disorder experts to define nosology and cut-offs of postural abnormalities. Results: After separating axial from appendicular postural deformities, a full agreement was found for the following terms and cut-offs: camptocormia, with thoracic fulcrum (>45°) or lumbar fulcrum (>30°), Pisa syndrome (>10°), and antecollis (>45°). "Anterior trunk flexion," with thoracic (≥25° to ≤45°) or lumbar fulcrum (>15° to ≤30°), "lateral trunk flexion" (≥5° to ≤10°), and "anterior neck flexion" (>35° to ≤45°) were chosen for milder postural abnormalities. Conclusions: For axial postural abnormalities, we recommend the use of proposed cut-offs and six unique terms, namely camptocormia, Pisa syndrome, antecollis, anterior trunk flexion, lateral trunk flexion, anterior neck flexion, to harmonize clinical practice and future research.
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 | 0.175 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".