MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968772654 · doi:10.1159/000075161

Longevity of Batteries in Internal Pulse Generators Used for Deep Brain Stimulation

2003· article· en· W1968772654 on OpenAlex

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

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Deep brain stimulationLongevityMedicineLife spanFunctional electrical stimulationParkinson's diseaseStimulationDiseaseGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The longevity of batteries in internal pulse generators (IPGs) used clinically for deep brain stimulation is not known. We conducted a study to assess the life span of these batteries. From 1993 to 2000, 163 single-channel batteries were surgically implanted in our institution. The electrical settings utilized in patients who had battery failures were assessed and the total electrical energy delivered (TEED) was calculated and correlated with battery longevity. Fourteen IPGs had battery failure requiring replacement. The median life span of the batteries was 45 months. Batteries with high energy consumption as assessed by TEED had a reduced life span (r = -0.82, p < or = 0.001). Patients with essential tremor who required battery replacement needed higher settings to control their symptoms and therefore presented a shorter battery life when compared to patients with Parkinson's disease. In our series of patients who needed battery replacement, battery longevity varied with stimulation parameters but was longer than expected from the manufacturer's specifications.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.234 · 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