MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984242967 · doi:10.1159/000195718

Induction of Bradykinesia with Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation in Patients with Cranial-Cervical Dystonia

2009· article· en· W1984242967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian D. Berman, Philip A. Starr, William J. Marks, Jill L. Ostrem

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNIH Clinical CenterNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationDystoniaCervical dystoniaSpasmodic TorticollisInternal capsuleMedicineRating scaleAdverse effectGlobus pallidusPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPopulationAnesthesiaPsychologyBasal gangliaInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingParkinson's diseaseCentral nervous systemRadiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus internus (GPi) is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for idiopathic generalized dystonia. More recently, it has been applied as a treatment for focal and segmental dystonias. This patient population offers an opportunity to study the effects of alteration of pallidal outflow on previously normal limb function. METHODS: We sought to retrospectively characterize the extent of novel GPi DBS-induced adverse motor effects in patients with adult-onset cervical and cranial-cervical dystonia using a questionnaire, and compared the findings to dystonia improvement as measured by standard scales. RESULTS: Despite significant improvement in dystonia (65% in mean Burke-Fahn-MarsdenDystonia Rating Scale motor score, p < 0.005, and 59% in mean Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale score, p < 0.008), slowing and difficulty with normal motor function was reported in previously nondystonic extremities in 10 of 11 patients. Symptoms were common in both upper and lower extremities and included new difficulties with handwriting (82%), getting up from a chair or in/out of a car (73%), and walking (45%), and were not associated with aberrant lead placement near the internal capsule. CONCLUSION: Although GPi DBS was shown to be effective in these patients, the influence of GPi DBS on nondystonic body regions deserves further investigation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations161
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStereotactic and Functional NeurosurgerySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207