P.051 Parkinson’s disease tremor can show entrainment and distractibility with tapping test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Electrophysiological tests such as the tapping test are used to distinguish functional and organic tremors, in which patients with functional tremor commonly show entrainment and amplitude reduction (>50% decrease relative to baseline) of contralateral tremor during tapping. While these features are suggested to be specific to functional tremor, the tapping test in Parkinson’s disease (PD) tremor has not been tested. Methods: We evaluated 18 PD patients (2F, age 64.17±7.30 [mean±SD] years) with rest and postural tremors using surface electromyography and triaxial accelerometry. Patients were recorded while tapping at 1, 3 and 5 Hz with the contralateral arm at rest or outstretched. Tremor amplitude and frequency were calculated using power spectrum analysis from accelerometer recordings. Results: Reduction of rest tremor amplitude was observed in 3/18 patients during 1 and 3 Hz tapping. Reduction was seen in 3/16 and 1/16 patients with postural tremors at 1 and 3 Hz tapping, respectively. Frequency shifts (>1.5 Hz) were observed in 3/18 rest tremors and 6/16 postural tremors. Seven patients exhibited rest and/or postural tremor entrainment during 3 or 5 Hz tapping. Conclusions: Distractibility and entrainment can be found in PD tremor. The tapping test may not reliably distinguish between PD tremor and functional tremor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".