MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988746425 · doi:10.1586/14737175.6.1.101

Neural stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: current therapies and future directions

2006· review· en· W1988746425 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph S. Neimat, Clement Hamani, Andrés M. Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationParkinson's diseaseNeuroscienceStimulationMedicineDiseaseBrain stimulationMovement disordersPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neural stimulation has rapidly become an integral tool in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders. Today it serves as an important adjunct to medical therapy that continues to gain applicability to patients in whom the disease has progressed significantly. Studies have demonstrated efficacy in several deep-brain targets, with prolonged benefit exceeding 5-year follow-up times. Continuing study is teaching us more about the mechanism of deep-brain stimulation effect. New targets, which may treat the disease more successfully, are being examined. In this review, the history of deep-brain stimulation, the rationale for the known targets of stimulation; the clinical evidence demonstrating their benefit and, finally, future perspectives on new treatments that are being investigated and may have an impact on the field are discussed.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207