ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Signal-based differentiation of essential and dystonic tremor.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is substantial overlap in the perceived clinical presentation of essential tremor (ET) and dystonic tremor (DT). As both etiologies require different treatment approaches, establishing the correct clinical diagnosis remains key. Massive time series feature extraction and machine learning allows the examination of oscillating biological signals in an objective manner. Objective: This study compares the spectrum of tremor characteristics in ET and DT patients across several academic centers to establish a generalizable differentiation. Methods: 278 accelerometer recordings from a multi-center cohort of 78 patients (37 ET, 27 DT, 14 TaD), recorded according to center-specific study protocols, were combined into a single data set. Standard tremor characteristics were compared with clinical diagnosis serving as the gold standard. Massive higher-order feature extraction was consistently applied to tri-axial postural accelerometer recordings, followed by supervised and unsupervised statistical learning. Results: Raw time-series signals were analyzed for both standard characteristics and >7,000 extracted features. Although features reached an optimal differentiation accuracy up to 90.2% in individual centers, none generalized across cohorts, indicating large differences in clinical phenotyping. Unsupervised machine learning detected two distinct signal clusters. Conclusion: This study shows that ET and DT are diagnosed inconsistently between even expert centers, reflecting inclusion bias and the variability of clinical features influencing clinical phenotyping. Although un-biased, data-driven approaches cannot replace clinical diagnostic criteria, they can help to identify truly generalizable movement patterns in so far inconsistently diagnosed disorders. Replicable and consistent patient stratification will likely improve research into the pathophysiology and treatment of tremor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.