MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967624616 · doi:10.3171/2010.5.focus1095

Current and future indications for deep brain stimulation in pediatric populations

2010· review· en· W1967624616 on OpenAlex
Nir Lipsman, Michael J. Ellis, Andrés M. Lozano

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedicineRefractory (planetary science)PopulationIntensive care medicineMovement disordersDiseaseParkinson's diseasePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has proven to be an effective and safe treatment option in patients with various advanced and treatment-refractory conditions. Thus far, most of the experience with DBS has been in the movement disorder literature, and more specifically in the adult population, where its use in conditions such as Parkinson disease has revolutionized management strategies. The pediatric population, however, can also be afflicted by functionally incapacitating neurological conditions that remain refractory despite the clinicians' best efforts. In such cases, DBS offers an additional treatment alternative. In this paper, the authors review their institution's experience with DBS in the pediatric population, and provide an overview of the literature on DBS in children. The authors conclude that DBS in children can and should be considered a valid and effective treatment option, albeit in highly specific and carefully selected cases.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.318 · 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