Sensory Tricks Are Associated with Higher Sleep-Related Quality of Life in Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Background:</strong> Sensory tricks are compensatory gestures that cervical dystonia (CD) patients use to reduce abnormal neck posture and movements. Although sensory tricks are common in CD, little is known about whether trick efficacy changes over time or has effect on quality of life. <strong>Methods:</strong> We analyzed clinical data and video recordings from 188 patients with isolated CD. We calculated the duration of CD and assessed the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scales and the Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile (CDIP-58). <strong>Results:</strong> A longer duration of CD corresponded to a less effective sensory trick (r(187) = 0.1901, p = 0.009). Patients who demonstrated more effective sensory tricks reported higher sleep-related quality of life than patients with less effective sensory tricks (r(187) = 0.1680, p = 0.0212). There were no significant relationships between the effectiveness of a sensory trick and the other aspects of quality of life as measured by the CDIP-58. <strong>Discussion:</strong> Patients who have had CD longer had less effective sensory tricks consistent with patients’ verbal reports of previously having a trick that no longer works. Patients should be apprised of a wide variety of sensory tricks because their previous tricks may lose efficacy over time and because more effective tricks are associated with higher sleep-related quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".