MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975474460 · doi:10.1111/dmcn.12175

Deep brain stimulation in cerebral palsy: an opportunity for collaborative research

2013· editorial· en· W1975474460 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Rosenbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology · 2013
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionBlindnessPsychologyMedicineClinical trialPediatricsPsychiatrySurgeryOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bill Silverman was one of the fathers of modern neonatology. He was also considered by many to be a demanding colleague. He challenged his peers and himself to embrace modern scientific methods to address the clinical problems we face. His poignant and powerful book Retrolental Fibroplasia: A Modern Parable1 describes the years of rancorous, opinion-based debate about whether retrolental fibroplasia, which led to blindness in over 10 000 preterm infants in the 1940s and 1950s, was caused by excess or insufficient supplemental oxygen. The situation was only resolved when a large collaborative randomized clinical trial was undertaken and a definitive answer reached – after which debate essentially ended. In the modern era of evidence-based medicine, most of us would hope to be guided as much as possible by the best evidence. Sadly, there are still too few available ‘facts’ in our field, and even these can often be viewed though many lenses and variably interpreted. One reason for this reality is that unless one pays careful attention to the details of each report about, for example, a new treatment, one can too easily miss nuances that significantly influenced what was done, and found, and reported. This is in part because there are so many sources of variation that can have an impact on the outcome of a treatment – the age and developmental stage of the children treated; their level of impairment; the nature, timing and details of their treatments; supplemental and adjunctive interventions; the timing and nature of assessment of the effects of the treatment - the list can go on and on. Unlike the field of childhood cancer, we have not been particularly effective in developmental disability in pooling our intellectual and clinical resources to address new ideas (and of course old problems) patiently, collaboratively, and systematically. One such opportunity is now at hand, namely the collaborative international exploration of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as an intervention for children with movement disorders associated with cerebral palsy (CP). Koy et al.2 have published a recent meta-analysis of 20 studies of the management of the dyskinetic type of CP (apparently all in adults) using DBS. The main common outcome of interest was clinical assessment of dystonia using several tools. After noting that these 20 reports involved only 68 participants in total, the authors comment ‘Most articles were case reports reflecting great variability in the score [of the outcome measure] and duration of follow-up.’ The early and uncritical adoption of an exciting idea happens far too easily. Our field is replete with examples of apparently good ideas that have, like fireworks, exploded on the scene, illuminated the ground below, elicited gasps from the viewers, and then quickly disappeared in a puff of smoke. In most cases new ideas are never subjected to proper study to help us find whether there are benefits to be harvested from the new approaches. Even in the few situations in which new ideas have been assessed with robust randomized clinical trials (such as in selective dorsal rhizotomy in CP)3-5 the surgical and post-operative management regimens were importantly distinct one from another, making meta-analysis challenging.6 We may have thrown some babies out with the bathwater! It is essential that cooperative planning and aggregation of collective experience in CP be undertaken before an apparently ‘good idea’ like DBS simply becomes another treatment of uncertain value. Without such efforts DBS may be offered by well-intentioned practitioners without detailed understanding about whether the intervention does more good than harm, and without knowing for whom it works better and less well. Of course there must be both academic leadership within the field, and human and financial resources that make it possible for people from several centres (and in this case from several countries) to map out a 5- to 10-year proposal for thoughtful and planned observation, description, data collection, and long-term follow-up of people who are treated and studied in a limited number of academic centres. The Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation (Princeton Junction, NJ, USA) is facilitating the establishment of a DBS in CP registry with the intent of an eventual international study of this procedure with uniform selection criteria, operative techniques (including brain localizations), outcome measurement, and appropriate follow-up. An experienced collaborative group from Europe, Israel, and North America has met to determine the data elements for the registry. Once established, any centre will be welcome to contribute cases to the registry. Data from the registry will be essential in establishing the protocol for an adequately powered prospective clinical trial. Let us hope that this experience sets a new standard for the whole field. The author is a member of the board, and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee, of Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation (CPIRF). The opinions expressed in this editorial are his alone.

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)0.149
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1490.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0150.025
Open science0.0050.023
Research integrity0.0190.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental Medicine & Child NeurologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207