Deep brain stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: Long-term outcome and the incidence of insertional effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a retrospective analysis of long-term results of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Twenty-one patients had electrodes implanted in the ventrocaudalis thalamic nucleus (Vc) (n=13) or in both Vc and periaqueductal/periventricular gray matter (PAG/PVG) (n=8). After insertion of the electrodes, 9 patients (43%) had a substantial reduction in pain scores in the absence of stimulation (insertional effect). The effects of stimulation were studied right after surgery or upon return of the patients' pain after electrode insertion (stimulation trials). Patients with a greater than 50% reduction in pain scores were implanted with a pulse generator (IPG). Of interest, patients who had an insertional effect had a trend towards a successful stimulation trial (p=0.08). Overall, 13 of the 21 patients operated (62%) had a successful stimulation trial and received an IPG (12 with electrodes in Vc and one in both Vc and PAG/PVG). Seven patients (33%) did not benefit from stimulation and had the electrodes removed. One patient experienced a prolonged insertional effect and has not required stimulation. Of the 13 patients that received an IPG, 8 discontinued stimulation during the first year of treatment. Only 5 patients maintained long-term benefit (4 with stimulation in Vc and one in both Vc and PAG/PVG). The relatively low efficacy of DBS for the treatment of neuropathic pain stresses the need for further investigation and the exploration of new surgical targets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".