Outpatient Motor Retraining for Functional Movement Disorder: Predictors of a Favorable Short‐Term Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treating functional movement disorder (FMD) with motor retraining is effective but resource intensive. Objectives: Identify patient, disease, and program variables associated with favorable treatment outcomes. Methods: Retrospective review of the 1 week intensive outpatient FMD program at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from February 2019 to August 2021. Outcomes included patient-reported measures (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure-Performance and Satisfaction subscales [COPM-P and COPM-S, range 0-10] and Global Rating of Change [GROC, -7 to +7]) and a retrospective investigator-rated scale (0-3, worse/not improved to significantly improved/resolved). Linear regression models identified variables predicting favorable outcomes. Results: Participants (n = 201, 74% female, mean age = 46) had median FMD duration of 24 months. The commonest FMD subtypes were gait disorder (65%), tremor (41%) and weakness (17%); 53% had ≥2 subtypes. Most patients (88%) completed a therapeutic screening process before program entry. Patient-reported outcomes at the end of the week improved substantially (COPM-P average change 3.8 ± 1.9; GROC post-program average 5.5 ± 1.7). Available investigator-rated outcomes from short-term follow-up were also positive (102/122 [84%] moderately to significantly improved/resolved). Factors predicting greater improvement in COPM-P were completing therapeutic screening, higher number of non-motor symptoms, shorter FMD duration, earlier program entry, lower baseline COPM scores, and (among screened patients) higher GROC between therapeutic screening and program start. Conclusion: Patients with diverse FMD subtypes improved substantially over a 1 week period. Utilization of therapeutic screening and greater improvement between therapeutic screening and program start were novel predictors of favorable outcomes. Non-motor symptoms did not preclude positive responses, although patients with predominant non-motor burden were excluded.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".