A prospective blinded evaluation of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of secondary dystonia and primary torticollis syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The aim of this study was to provide an objective assessment of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for groups of patients with mixed secondary dystonia and primary torticollis syndromes by a blinded evaluation of 13 consecutive patients who underwent ineffective medical treatment and botulinum toxin injections. METHODS: Nine patients with secondary dystonia and 4 with cranial dystonia involving prominent spasmodic torticollis were selected for a DBS implant after they underwent unsuccessful medical treatment. Preoperative videos and neurological assessments were obtained and the DBS implant was inserted into the globus pallidus internus. Postoperatively, DBS parameters were adjusted to provide optimal benefit. Postoperative videotapes and quality of life scores were obtained. Blinded randomized evaluation of videotapes was performed by a neurologist specializing in movement disorders. Videos were scored using the Unified Dystonia Rating Scale, Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale, Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale, or Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale. Quality of life scoring was assessed using a standardized 7-point Global Rating Scale. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed preoperative videotaping, medical assessment, and surgery. Optimal DBS programming was completed in 6.5 visits over 5.9 months. Seven patients reported marked improvement, 3 reported moderate improvement, 2 reported slight improvement or no change, and 1 was lost to follow-up. Examiner scores on the Global Rating Scale reflected patient self-reported scores. CONCLUSIONS: Global subjective gains and notable objective improvement were observed in 11 of 13 patients. Although the benefits were variable and not fully predictable, they were of sufficient magnitude to justify offering the procedure when medications and botulinum toxin injections have failed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".