MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390537438 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13970

Reply: Evaluating the Scope and Safety of Bilateral <scp>MRgFUS</scp> Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor: A Critical Analysis

2024· letter· en· W4390537438 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Nadia Scantlebury, Jennifer S. Rabin, Emmanuel De Schlichting, Clement Hamani, Michael L. Schwartz, Nir Lipsman, Agessandro Abrahão

Notice bibliographique

RevueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2024
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeurological disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineLibrary science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Mickael Aubignat for reading our paper and for the letter entitled “Evaluating the Scope and Safety of Bilateral MRgFUS Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor: A Critical Analysis,”1 which expands the discussion of important safety aspects of our early-stage trial of bilateral, staged magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) thalamotomy for patients with medication-resistant essential tremor (mrET).2 We implemented a risk-ascending strategy to mitigate the potential for adverse events historically associated with bilateral thalamotomies. In particular, we prespecified an inter-procedural interval of at least 1 year following the first MRgFUS thalamotomy; conservative in comparison to similar trials, including one with an inter-procedural interval of 5 months.3 Akin to other bilateral, staged MRgFUS trials, we defined restrictive eligibility criteria a priori, whereby patients with persistent adverse events (AEs) from the first MRgFUS procedure were excluded from the second.3 While other trials used clinical judgment to exclude patients with significant AEs, we specified objective exclusionary parameters based on the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) and extensive neuropsychological testing. Patients with SARA gait subscore ≥2 points (ie, gait “clearly abnormal, tandem walking >10 steps not possible” or worse), SARA speech subscore ≥2 points (ie, “impaired speech, but easy to understand” or worse) or who presented with language impairment did not undergo the second thalamotomy. In line with other studies,3 our trial demonstrated the safety of the contralateral MRgFUS procedure following a safe and efficacious first thalamotomy. As such, the current safety evidence from our trial and others may not be generalizable to mrET patients with permanent AEs or suboptimal tremor amelioration following the first intervention. With the recent regulatory approval of bilateral, staged MRgFUS thalamotomy in the United States and Europe,4 we anticipate that more bilateral procedures with less stringent eligibility criteria will be reported in mrET patients. These data will be important in informing the safety profile and eligibility envelope of the second MRgFUS procedure. For instance, in the present phase of our risk-ascending strategy, we are less concerned about cognitive decline following thalamotomy. This decision was based on comprehensive neuropsychological data from recent trials2, 3 and a meta-analysis,5 which collectively indicate that thalamotomy is safe from a cognitive standpoint. However, we remain cautious about performing a second thalamotomy in patients with MRgFUS-induced disequilibrium or pre-existing gait impairment related to other etiologies. Lastly, future multicenter long-term studies will inform data-driven eligibility criteria and prediction of safety and efficacy endpoints. Using neurophysiology, advanced neuroimaging and quantification of safety outcome measures, such as gait and speech analyses, these studies will allow for deep tremor phenotyping and lesioning characterization. (1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique. N.S.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B J.S.R.: 1A, 3B E.D.S.: 3A, 3B, 3C, 3A, 3B C.H.: 3B M.L.S.: 3B N.L.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B A.A.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest: The authors acknowledge support from the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Financial Disclosures for Previous 12 Months: Grants: The authors acknowledge support from the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Research Institute and the Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program. J.S.R. also receives support from the Dr. Sandra Black Centre for Brain Resilience & Recovery. N.L. receives support from InSightec, Veteran's Affairs Canada, Power Corporation, the Weston Brain Institute and the Alternate Planning Fund. C.H. and N.L. are supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the New Frontiers in Research Fund. A.A. and N.L. received support from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, and the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. A.A. receives support from the ALS Society of Canada. Honoraria: A.A. has received an honorarium from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Amylyx. Ethical Compliance Statement: All activities were performed under approval of the Sunnybrook Research Ethics Board (Project ID 3341). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to participation. We confirm that we read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,106
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,020
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,439
Écart entre enseignants0,374 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeMême sujetNeurological disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207