Youth with essential tremor differ from age-matched controls in multiple aspects of visually-guided reaching movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Essential tremor (ET) likely includes deficits outside tremor, though this is under-examined in youth. We tested the hypothesis that reaching movements in youth with ET are characterized by greater incoordination. METHODS: Fifteen youth with ET (ages 11 to 17) recruited from the Calgary Tourette and Pediatric Movement Disorders Clinic completed a visually-guided reaching task using the Kinarm Exoskeleton Lab. Performance in several kinematic parameters was compared with age-matched controls. RESULTS: Youth with ET differed from controls in multiple parameters. In the dominant arm, the initial portion of reaching movements was slower and smaller-amplitude, with longer reaction time and greater posture speed at movement end when the hand should be at rest. In the non-dominant arm, those with ET differed from controls in a larger number of parameters. All but three with ET were impaired in at least one task parameter, scoring outside age-predicted norms. CONCLUSION: Our study supports the notion of ET as a disorder with abnormalities beyond tremor, and that motoric abnormalities are demonstrable in youth with ET. SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first study showing youth with ET differ from age-matched controls in multiple aspects of reaching movements, including initial trajectory control, movement smoothness, overall trajectory, and endpoint control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".