MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280508711 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13487

Periodic Limb Movements while Awake (<scp><i>PLMA</i></scp>) as a Manifestation of <scp>Wearing‐Off</scp> in Parkinson's Disease: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

2022· article· en· W4280508711 on OpenAlexaff
Sohaila Alshimemeri, Daniel G. Di Luca, Diana A. Olszewska, Eoin Mulroy, Kailash P. Bhatia, Susan H. Fox, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRestless Legs Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakefulnessParkinson's diseaseRestless legs syndromeDopaminergicDyskinesiaPsychologyNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineDiseaseDopamineElectroencephalographyNeurologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Periodic limb movements while awake (PLMA) are similar to Periodic limb movements in sleep (PLMS) but occurring during wakefulness and seen in association with restless leg syndrome (RLS). Objectives: To describe PLMA as a wearing-off phenomenon in Parkinson's Disease (PD). Methods: We describe four individuals with PD and PLMS, who had associated similar periodic and stereotypic lower extremity movements during wakefulness, thought to be secondary to PLMA, and were highly responsive to dopaminergic treatment. Results: Despite the prevalence of RLS and PLMS in individuals with PD, the presence of similar movements during wakefulness has not been well characterized. The lack of a specific diagnostic criteria poses a significant diagnostic challenge. Conclusions: We describe, for the first time to our knowledge, PLMA as a wearing-off phenomenon in PD. This entity could be classified in the spectrum of "low-dose dyskinesia," as we found that it was highly responsive to dopaminergic treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicRestless Legs Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207