MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552376899 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2127w

Assessment of Potential Targets for Deep Brain Stimulation in Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease

2015· review· en· W1552376899 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mayur Sharma, Milind Deogaonkar, Ali R. Rezai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromodulationDeep brain stimulationMedicineNeuroscienceDiseaseClinical trialAlzheimer's diseaseBioinformaticsQuality of life (healthcare)StimulationParkinson's diseasePathologyInternal medicinePsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder affecting 36 million people worldwide and 5.2 million in the United States. The pathogenesis of AD is still elusive. Accumulations of abnormal proteins (beta amyloid and tau protein), inflammatory cascades, abnormal responses to oxidative stress and alteration in oxidative metabolism have been implicated in AD. There are few effective therapeutic options available for this disorder at present. Neuromodulation offers a novel treatment modality for patients with AD. The databases of Medline and PubMed were searched for various studies in English literature describing the deep brain stimulation (DBS) in patients with AD. Various animal and human clinical studies have shown promising initial results with bilateral DBS targeting various anatomical nodes. In this review, we attempt to highlight the pathophysiology, neural circuitry and potential neuromodulation options in patients with AD. In appropriately selected patients, DBS can potentially delay the cognitive decline, enhance memory functions and can improve the overall quality of life. However, further randomized controlled trials are required to validate the efficacy of neuromodulation and to determine the most optimal target for AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.384
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207