MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361208343 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2022-330192

Functional neurological disorder is a feminist issue

2023· review· en· W4361208343 on OpenAlexaff
Caoimhe McLoughlin, Ingrid Hoeritzauer, Verónica Cabreira, Selma Aybek, Caitlin Adams, Jane Alty, Harriet A. Ball, Janet Baker, Kim Bullock, Chrissie Burness, Barbara A. Dworetzky, Sara A. Finkelstein, Béatrice Garcin, Jeannette Gelauff, Laura H. Goldstein, Anika Jordbru, Anne‐Catherine M. L. Huys, Aoife Laffan, Sarah C. Lidstone, Stefanie C. Linden, Lea Ludwig, Julie Maggio, Francesca Morgante, Elizabeth Mallam, Clare Nicholson, M. Angela O’Neal, Suzanne O‘Sullivan, Isabel Pareés, Panayiota Petrochilos, Susannah Pick, Wendy Phillips, Karin Roelofs, Rachel Newby, Biba Stanton, Cordelia Gray, Eileen M. Joyce, Marina A.J. Tijssen, Trudie Chalder, Maxanne McCormick, Paula Gardiner, Indrit Bègue, Margaret Tuttle, Isobel Williams, Sarah McRae, Valerie Voon, Laura McWhirter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMedical Research CouncilEuropean CommissionKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchScottish GovernmentDepartment of Health and Social CareNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research CentreSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsNeglectPsychiatryNeurological disorderConversion disorderMedicineMedical literaturePsychologyIntensive care medicineSurgeryCentral nervous system disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional neurological disorder (FND) is a common and disabling disorder, often misunderstood by clinicians. Although viewed sceptically by some, FND is a diagnosis that can be made accurately, based on positive clinical signs, with clinical features that have remained stable for over 100 years. Despite some progress in the last decade, people with FND continue to suffer subtle and overt forms of discrimination by clinicians, researchers and the public. There is abundant evidence that disorders perceived as primarily affecting women are neglected in healthcare and medical research, and the course of FND mirrors this neglect. We outline the reasons why FND is a feminist issue, incorporating historical and contemporary clinical, research and social perspectives. We call for parity for FND in medical education, research and clinical service development so that people affected by FND can receive the care they need.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations70
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207