Are Cognitive Symptoms Part of the Phenotypic Spectrum of Idiopathic Adult‐Onset Dystonia? Summary of Evidence from Controlled Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction has been reported in idiopathic adult-onset dystonia (IAOD), but whether this is a primary or secondary component of the disorder remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Here, we aimed to analyze the key domains of abnormal cognitive performance in IAOD and whether this is associated with motor or mood changes. METHODS: Article selection for our critical review was guided by PRISMA guidelines (mesh terms "dystonia" and "cognitive," publication period: 2000-2022). Only peer-reviewed, English-language original case-control studies involving patients with IAOD who were not exposed to dopamine- or acetylcholine-modulating agents and validated cognitive assessments were included. RESULTS: Abstract screening ultimately yielded 22 articles for full-text review and data extraction. A greater proportion of studies (17 of 22, 82%) reported abnormal cognitive performance in IAOD. Most of these studies focused on blepharospasm (BSP) and cervical dystonia (10 and 14, respectively). Most studies reporting cognitive impairment (11 of 17) identified multidomain impairment in cognition. Executive functions were the domain most frequently explored (14 of 22 studies), 79% of which detected worse performance in people with dystonia. Results related to other domains were inconclusive. Cognitive abnormalities were independent of motor symptoms in most studies (7 of 12) that explored this relationship and independent of mood status in all 8 that investigated this. CONCLUSIONS: Within IAOD, cognitive dysfunction (in particular, executive dysfunction) has been documented mainly in BSP and cervical dystonia. More comprehensive testing is warranted to assess abnormalities in other domains and in other forms of IAOD, as well as to evaluate longitudinal progression of cognitive disturbances in this condition.
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 | 0.031 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".