Delayed clinical improvement after deep brain stimulation–related subdural hematoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The purpose of this paper is to present 4 cases that illustrate the management and outcome of subdural hematoma (SDH) following deep brain stimulation (DBS) lead implantation. METHODS: The authors identified 4 cases of SDH following DBS lead implantation from a pool of 500 consecutive lead implantations (incidence 0.08%) performed at the University of Florida. Cases were characterized by chart review, serial Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale evaluations, and changes on serial postoperative imaging studies. RESULTS: Two of the 4 patients with DBS-related SDH were clinically symptomatic. In the other 2 cases the SDH was incidentally discovered on routine postoperative lead localization imaging studies. None of the patients required craniotomy for evacuation of the SDH in the acute phase. Three of the 4 cases were managed with bur hole drainage in the chronic phase, and one was successfully managed nonoperatively. In all 4 cases, thresholds for stimulationinduced side effects were lower during initial postoperative programming than during intraoperative macrostimulation. Expected clinical improvement from DBS was achieved without lead revision in all 4 cases, but only after a significant delay. CONCLUSIONS: Subdural hematoma is a rare and potentially avoidable complication of DBS that does not typically mandate acute hematoma evacuation or hardware revision and does not preclude an excellent outcome from DBS therapy. The clinical picture and apparent lead position tend to improve with time, and it may be wise to delay repositioning of an ineffective DBS lead following a hemorrhage until the DBS lead and surrounding brain tissue have settled into their final position and the insulted brain has had sufficient time to recover.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".