MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4297215855 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.08.023

Corrigendum to “Structural and functional correlates of deep brain stimulation-induced apathy in Parkinson's disease”

2022· erratum· en· W4297215855 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lennard I. Boon, Wouter V. Potters, Thomas J.C. Zoon, Odile A. van den Heuvel, Naomi Prent, Rob M.A. de Bie, Maarten Bot, P. Richard Schuurman, Pepijn van den Munckhof, Gert J. Geurtsen, Arjan Hillebrand, Cornelis J. Stam, Anne‐Fleur van Rootselaar, Henk W. Berendse

Notice bibliographique

RevueBrain stimulation · 2022
Typeerratum
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeurological disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésApathyStimulationDeep brain stimulationSubthalamic nucleusPsychologyBrain stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationParkinson's diseaseAudiologyInternal medicineDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The authors apologize for an error in the published version of the above article. In the visualization of deep brain stimulation contact point positions (Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure E), left and right were swapped. As a result, we wrongly stated that left-sided stimulation positions were correlated with the occurrence of post-operative apathy. Instead, this statement should have been made regarding right-sided stimulation positions. Since we did not elaborate on the lateralization of our results, the error did not affect the main conclusions of the article.Furthermore, the p-value displayed in Figure 1B did not match the p-value in the main text and the figure legend, which we have now corrected.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)Corrigendum Supplementary Fig. E Stimulation locations of contact points in relation to improvement in motor score.Stimulation locations in MNI-space (viewed from respectively dorsolateral left, posterior and dorsolateral right). The subthalamic nucleus (blue) and red nucleus (red) were added for reference purposes. Improvements in motor score (% UPDRS-III, contrasting pre- versus post-DBS scores) are color-coded, ranging from no improvement (green/yellow) to strong improvement (dark red).Next, stimulation locations were projected on a vector through the longitudinal axis of the STN, where negative values indicated more ventromedial stimulation positions. There were no significant correlations between stimulation position and improvement in motor performance; left side (r(24) = 0.055, p = 0.788); right side (r(24) = −0.197, p = 0.335).MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; L, left; R, right; UPDRS-III, Unified Parkinson's disease Rating Scale, motor part.Correction to abstract.The paragraph describing the results was changed into: “Results: …For the right hemisphere, increase in apathy was associated with a more dorsolateral stimulation location (p = 0.010) …”Correction to results.Apathy and DBS localization.This paragraph was changed into: “.. There was a significant correlation between a more dorsolateral stimulation position (along a vector) and increase in apathy severity post-DBS for the right side (p = 0.010), but not for the left side (p = 0.491; Fig.1B). In contrast, there was no relationship between stimulation position (along the same vector) and the degree of improvement in total motor score (UPDRS-III; Supplementary Fig E). Next, we performed a hierarchical linear regression model usingA backward elimination method to study the relationship between stimulation location and change in apathy score, including the following covariates: pre-to post-operative change in executive functioning, depression score, anxiety score, LEDD total, LEDD of dopamine agonist, and motor function. For the right side this resulted in the following model: R2 = 0.465; change in depression score, b(standardized) = 0.587, p = 0.039; stimulation position, b(standardized) = 0.727, p = 0.015. For the left side no statistically significant model could be fitted.Correction to discussion.The first paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “..The pre-to-post-DBS increase in apathy severity was associated with a more dorsolateral position of the stimulation for the right hemisphere, …”The fourth paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “.. In addition, we observed a significant correlation between increase in pre-to-post DBS apathy score and a more dorsolateral stimulation location relative to the STN for the right hemisphere, but not for the left hemisphere. As the occurrence of apathy has previously not been related to laterality of DBS [45,46], we refrain from drawing any conclusions from this left-right difference.”The sixth paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “… In our study increases in apathy severity were not associated with changes in executive functioning, whereas in the multiple regression model there was a relation between improvement in depression scores and better apathy scores after surgery (in the context of right-sided stimulation). It remains to be determined whether the occurrence of apathy after DBS has a cognitive or emotional-affective basis.”The final paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “In conclusion, we found that increase in apathy severity after STN-DBS might well be an effect of the stimulation itself. Increased apathy severity scores correlated with a more dorsolateral stimulation location (right hemisphere) and with …” The authors apologize for an error in the published version of the above article. In the visualization of deep brain stimulation contact point positions (Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure E), left and right were swapped. As a result, we wrongly stated that left-sided stimulation positions were correlated with the occurrence of post-operative apathy. Instead, this statement should have been made regarding right-sided stimulation positions. Since we did not elaborate on the lateralization of our results, the error did not affect the main conclusions of the article. Furthermore, the p-value displayed in Figure 1B did not match the p-value in the main text and the figure legend, which we have now corrected. Corrigendum Supplementary Fig. E Stimulation locations of contact points in relation to improvement in motor score. Stimulation locations in MNI-space (viewed from respectively dorsolateral left, posterior and dorsolateral right). The subthalamic nucleus (blue) and red nucleus (red) were added for reference purposes. Improvements in motor score (% UPDRS-III, contrasting pre- versus post-DBS scores) are color-coded, ranging from no improvement (green/yellow) to strong improvement (dark red). Next, stimulation locations were projected on a vector through the longitudinal axis of the STN, where negative values indicated more ventromedial stimulation positions. There were no significant correlations between stimulation position and improvement in motor performance; left side (r(24) = 0.055, p = 0.788); right side (r(24) = −0.197, p = 0.335). MNI, Montreal Neurological Institute; L, left; R, right; UPDRS-III, Unified Parkinson's disease Rating Scale, motor part. Correction to abstract. The paragraph describing the results was changed into: “Results: …For the right hemisphere, increase in apathy was associated with a more dorsolateral stimulation location (p = 0.010) …” Correction to results. Apathy and DBS localization. This paragraph was changed into: “.. There was a significant correlation between a more dorsolateral stimulation position (along a vector) and increase in apathy severity post-DBS for the right side (p = 0.010), but not for the left side (p = 0.491; Fig.1B). In contrast, there was no relationship between stimulation position (along the same vector) and the degree of improvement in total motor score (UPDRS-III; Supplementary Fig E). Next, we performed a hierarchical linear regression model using A backward elimination method to study the relationship between stimulation location and change in apathy score, including the following covariates: pre-to post-operative change in executive functioning, depression score, anxiety score, LEDD total, LEDD of dopamine agonist, and motor function. For the right side this resulted in the following model: R2 = 0.465; change in depression score, b(standardized) = 0.587, p = 0.039; stimulation position, b(standardized) = 0.727, p = 0.015. For the left side no statistically significant model could be fitted. Correction to discussion. The first paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “..The pre-to-post-DBS increase in apathy severity was associated with a more dorsolateral position of the stimulation for the right hemisphere, …” The fourth paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “.. In addition, we observed a significant correlation between increase in pre-to-post DBS apathy score and a more dorsolateral stimulation location relative to the STN for the right hemisphere, but not for the left hemisphere. As the occurrence of apathy has previously not been related to laterality of DBS [45,46], we refrain from drawing any conclusions from this left-right difference.” The sixth paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “… In our study increases in apathy severity were not associated with changes in executive functioning, whereas in the multiple regression model there was a relation between improvement in depression scores and better apathy scores after surgery (in the context of right-sided stimulation). It remains to be determined whether the occurrence of apathy after DBS has a cognitive or emotional-affective basis.” The final paragraph of the discussion section was changed into: “In conclusion, we found that increase in apathy severity after STN-DBS might well be an effect of the stimulation itself. Increased apathy severity scores correlated with a more dorsolateral stimulation location (right hemisphere) and with …” Structural and functional correlates of subthalamic deep brain stimulation-induced apathy in Parkinson’s diseaseBrain Stimulation: Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research in NeuromodulationVol. 14Issue 1PreviewNotwithstanding the large improvement in motor function in Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients treated with deep brain stimulation (DBS), apathy may increase. Postoperative apathy cannot always be related to a dose reduction of dopaminergic medication and stimulation itself may play a role. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,192
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,248 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBrain stimulationMême sujetNeurological disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207