Deep brain stimulation therapy for Parkinson’s disease using frameless stereotaxy: comparison with frame‐based surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery has been performed using frame-based stereotaxy traditionally; however, in recent years, it has also been performed using frameless stereotaxy. The purpose of this study was to compare the experience at our centre in performing DBS surgery using frameless surgery for patients with Parkinson's disease with that of using frame-based surgery. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with advanced Parkinson's disease underwent DBS surgery, 12 with frameless and 12 with frame-based stereotaxy. After identifying the subthalamus by microelectrode recording (MER), the DBS electrodes were implanted and connected to an implanted programmable generator in all patients. Programming was started 1 month after the operation and the outcome of the patients was followed up regularly for at least 12 months. RESULTS: After 1 year of follow-up, the patients who received frameless surgery showed no difference in the degree of improvement in clinical motor function compared with the patients who received frame-based surgery (P = 0.819); the average improvement was 60.9% and 56.9%, respectively, in the stimulation alone/medication-off state, as evaluated by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-III motor subscore. However, the frameless group had significantly shorter total MER time (P = 0.0127) and a smaller number of trajectories (P = 0.0096) than the frame-based group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that frameless DBS surgery has a similar outcome when compared with frame-based surgery; however, frameless surgery can decrease the operation time, MER time, and MER trajectory number.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".