MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985549626 · doi:10.1586/14737175.6.11.1695

Criteria for deep-brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: review and analysis

2006· review· en· W1985549626 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

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement DisordersUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationPedunculopontine nucleusSubthalamic nucleusNeuroscienceParkinson's diseaseDyskinesiaMovement disordersThalamusPsychologyLevodopaStimulationMedicineDiseaseBrain stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep-brain stimulation is currently the most effective surgical treatment for advanced Parkinson's disease. The relevant targets to date are the subthalamic nucleus and the globus pallidus internus, although the thalamus (ventralis intermedius nucleus) is preferred in tremor-dominant, aged Parkinson's disease patients. Long-term benefit in cardinal parkinsonian signs, motor fluctuations and dyskinesia has been reported in 5-year follow-up studies of subthalamic nucleus deep-brain stimulation. However, some psychiatric consequences have raised important issues and emphasized the need for an experienced deep-brain stimulation surgical team. This team should be multidisciplinary and involve movement disorder neurologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists and psychiatrists. The recent observation that deep-brain stimulation of the pedunculopontine nucleus improves axial signs, possibly even in those less responsive to levodopa, brings new hope to the management of advanced Parkinson's disease.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.353 · 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