<strong>Dystonia, Tremor, and Dystonic Tremor</strong>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dystonia and tremor are distinct movement disorders, but they overlap in certain circumstances. First, dystonia and tremor may co-exist in the same individual, in the same or different regions of the body. Second, dystonic movements are sometimes rapid and repetitive, and they may mimic tremor. The term dystonic tremor first appeared in the literature to describe a rapid and repetitive dystonic movement that mimicked tremor but could be discriminated from essential tremor. With the first consensus statement on tremor, the term dystonic tremor was instead used to describe any combination of dystonia with tremor in the same body region, a definition retained in the latest consensus statement. Both definitions continue to be used in the modern literature. To address this problem, a group of specialists in dystonia and tremor met to review the problem and develop recommendations for more consistent approach. The group agreed that a terminology that could be applied in the clinic was essential, even though laboratory-based measures may sometimes be required. The group also agreed that the term tremor should exclusively refer to rhythmic movements, and the establishment of boundaries for rhythmicity is needed. The group also agreed that repetitive movements that are grossly arrhythmic in the context of dystonia, should be called jerky dystonia, rather than terms that imply tremor. Moreover, when both tremor and dystonia coexist, they should be described according to affected body regions rather than given distinct labels.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.056 |
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".