MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975178427 · doi:10.1159/000345262

Use of Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation in Postinfarct Hemidystonia

2013· article· en· W1975178427 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationDystoniaGlobus pallidusPallidotomyRating scalePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBasal gangliaPsychologyStroke (engine)MedicineMovement disordersPhysical therapyNeuroscienceInternal medicineParkinson's diseaseDevelopmental psychologyCentral nervous systemDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Reports of outcomes in treating dystonia secondary to stroke with deep brain stimulation (DBS) are limited. We report our experience with 3 patients, all with infarcts involving the striatum, who developed hemidystonia and were treated with unilateral globus pallidus interna DBS. METHODS: Case series describing characteristics and outcomes based on the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS) scores before and after DBS at 3, 6 and at least 12 months. RESULTS: All patients reported subjective improvements after surgery. At 1 year or more after surgery, none of the 3 patients displayed a measureable improvement in the BFMDRS movement score. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with previous reports of limited benefits from pallidal DBS in secondary dystonia. Future work should focus on predictive factors for DBS outcomes and the development of more sensitive assessment tools specifically for secondary dystonias as well as the exploration of alternative brain targets for stimulation.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.209 · 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