Preface to the 2021 Video Challenge Supplement for <i>Movement Disorders Clinical Practice</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relevant disclosures and conflict of interest are listed at the end of this article. The video challenge (VC) remains one of the most popular components of the International Congress of Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice provides the ideal venue to publish the outstanding cases selected each year for presentation. The 14th annual VC took place at the 25th MDS Congress in September 2021. This event differed in a several ways from previous years. Because of the ongoing pandemic, the entire program was virtual; however, in contrast to the year before and to most of the other components of the 2021 Congress, the VC was presented live in real time. Second, to further adapt to the virtual format the organization of the presentations was revised. Normally, for live congresses we have used a panel of experts to collectively discuss the cases. In 2020, we chose two separate discussants for each case. The first, blinded to the final answer, was charged with summarizing the phenomenology and the possible diagnoses while the second discussant, who had been given the final diagnosis in advance, was charged with providing an academic review of the disorder and take-home messages. For 2021, we limited the second discussants to four special experts who were charged with putting the case into perspective and providing a high-level learning experience. Third, “short cases,” often presented in previous years as “Audience Challenges,” were converted to “Audience Chatlenges,” allowing audience members to discuss the case in the chat box. Finally, and most importantly, after 13 years of the video Olympics/Games/Challenge Dr. Kapil Sethi retired as cohost and was replaced by Dr. Kailash Bhatia. As you will see from the accompanying video, (Video 1) this was not without its problems, but it all worked out well in the end with a seamless transition of cohosting responsibilities. The video accompanying this brief editorial also acknowledges all those involved in review of the cases, provides a more detailed explanation of how the case presentations have been organized, and, at the end, provides the reader the list of the bronze, silver, and gold award winners that were determined at the time of the event. This year, 19 cases were presented (nine long cases, six Audience Chatlenges, and four very brief cases). This Supplement issue contains 13 of these, including two of the three award-winners. Accompanying the published Case Reports are two videos: the first is the classical patient video as described in the manuscript, and the second is the video of the presentation as it took place in the VC event, including the excellent presentations of the two expert discussants. We hope that you will enjoy learning from these thought-provoking and stimulating cases, and we look forward to seeing you live at the Video Challenge in the future.
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 | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".