Transitional Care for Young People with Movement Disorders: Consensus‐Based Recommendations from the MDS Task Force on Pediatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society (MDS) set up a working group on pediatric movement disorders (MDS Task Force on Pediatrics) to generate recommendations to guide the transition process from pediatrics to adult health care systems in patients with childhood‐onset movement disorders. Methods To develop recommendations for transitional care for childhood onset movement disorders, we used a formal consensus development process, using a multi‐round, web‐based Delphi survey. The Delphi survey was based on the results of the scoping review of the literature and the results of a survey of MDS members on transition practices. Through iterative discussions, we generated the recommendations included in the survey. The MDS Task Force on Pediatrics were the voting members for the Delphi survey. The task force members comprise 23 child and adult neurologists with expertise in the field of movement disorders and from all regions of the world. Results Fifteen recommendations divided across four different areas were made pertaining to: (1) team composition and structure, (2) planning and readiness, (3) goals of care, and (4) administration and research. All recommendations achieved consensus with a median score of 7 or greater. Conclusion Recommendations on providing transitional care for patients with childhood onset movement disorders are provided. Nevertheless several challenges remain in the implementation of these recommendations, related to health infrastructure and the distribution of health resources, and the availability of knowledgeable and interested practitioners. Research on the influence of transitional care programs on outcomes in childhood onset movement disorders is much needed.
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 | 0.231 | 0.310 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".