ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2026
Defining the Clinical Phenotypic Ground Truth: Expert Interrater Agreement in Hyperkinetic Movement Disorders.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 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
44 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReliable clinical phenotyping is crucial for diagnosis, treatment, and research in hyperkinetic movement disorders, yet its interrater reliability remains uncertain.
objectivesTo quantify interrater agreement in clinical phenotyping of hyperkinetic movement disorders among experts in a large, phenotypically diverse cohort.
methodsWithin the NEMO project, 161 patients with hyperkinetic movement disorders underwent standardized video assessments. Each patient was independently classified by three international movement disorders experts in a structured, stepwise procedure. Experts first assessed videos alone, then received clinical history and examination, and finally diagnostic test results. At each step, they assigned primary and secondary phenotypes and rated their diagnostic confidence. Interrater agreement was assessed using Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa.
resultsAcross all phenotypes, interrater agreement on the primary phenotype increased with added information (κ = 0.457 to κ = 0.607). Agreement with the NEMO reference classification similarly improved (κ = 0.478 to κ = 0.656). Among patients with a single dominant phenotype, agreement reached κ = 0.78. In 93% of cases, at least two out of three experts reached consensus. Agreement was substantially lower in patients with mixed or complex presentations, such as myoclonus-dystonia and functional movement disorders. Diagnostic certainty rose throughout, though secondary phenotype agreement remained poor. Experts rarely revised initial impressions, suggesting robust pattern recognition but also potential confirmation bias.
conclusionsMovement disorders specialists can reliably identify hyperkinetic phenotypes, even without in-person assessment. While complex, mixed and functional presentations remain diagnostically challenging, our findings reinforce the value of expert phenotyping in clinical care, training, and research, and provide a benchmark for future studies and computational approaches.
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.