Use of Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation in Postinfarct Hemidystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".