MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403207848 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000200367

Functional Movement Disorders and Deep Brain Stimulation

2024· review· en· W4403207848 on OpenAlex
Alexandra Boogers, Alfonso Fasano

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement disordersMovement (music)NeuroscienceDeep brain stimulationStimulationBrain stimulationFunctional electrical stimulationPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose of the Review: The aim of this narrative review was to explore the interplay between functional movement disorders (FMDs) and deep brain stimulation (DBS). Recent Findings: Patients with unrecognized FMD who are referred for DBS usually present with functional dystonia. By contrast, patients who present with FMD after DBS are mostly presenting with functional tremor, in keeping with non-DBS FMD cohorts. Comorbid presentation of FMD in established DBS indications makes the decision to opt for surgery challenging. Many contributing factors can play a role in the development of FMD, including the trauma caused by awake neurosurgery and/or extensive DBS programming. Summary: FMDs in the context of DBS are often overlooked and should be diagnosed promptly because they determine surgical outcome. The approach to DBS candidates with comorbid FMD and the risk factors of FMD after DBS should be further explored.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.367 · 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