Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation Essential Tremor: Recommendations Long-Term Outcome Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Determine the efficacy of thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) for tremor control among individuals with essential tremor (ET). METHODS: A clinical series of 52 consecutive individuals undergoing placement of a DBS system for treatment of ET completed an unblinded battery of subjective and objective measures at postoperative intervals of one, three, and 12 months, and annually thereafter up to three years. The assessment battery included measures of tremor and activities of daily living. RESULTS: Both subjective and objective measures showed that stimulation was associated with significant improvement at nearly every postoperative interval as compared to pre-operative and stimulation 'off' ratings of activities of daily living functioning, midline tremor, contralateral upper extremity tremor, and contralateral lower extremity tremor. Ipsilateral tremor showed some improvement with stimulation, but only within the first three months. Trend analysis showed stable tremor control. Stimulation settings remained largely unchanged after the first three months. Dysarthria was more common among those with bilateral stimulation. A range of missing data estimation methods were performed, and subsequent analyses corroborated the main findings of the study. CONCLUSION: Thalamic DBS is generally a well-tolerated and effective treatment for ET. Methodological and analytical recommendations are provided for the evaluation of long-term outcome.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".