MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005320491 · doi:10.1002/mds.25204

Surgical treatment for secondary dystonia

2012· review· en· W2005320491 on OpenAlexaff
Travis S. Tierney, Andrés M. Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDystoniaDeep brain stimulationMedicineBotulinum toxinBasal gangliaDenervationSurgeryCervical dystoniaPallidotomyCerebral palsyAnesthesiaDiseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCentral nervous systemParkinson's diseasePsychiatryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgical therapy for the secondary dystonias is generally perceived to be less effective than for primary disease. However, a number of case reports and small open series have recently appeared describing quite favorable outcomes following surgery for some nonprimary dystonias. We discuss surgical treatment options for this group of diverse conditions, including tardive dystonia, dystonic cerebral palsy, and certain heredodegenerative diseases in which deep brain stimulation and ablative lesions of the posteroventral pallidum have been shown to be effective. Other types of secondary dystonia respond less well to pallidal surgery, particularly when anatomical lesions of the basal ganglia are prominent on preoperative imaging. For these conditions, central baclofen delivery and botulinum toxin denervation may be considered. With optimal medical and surgical care, some patients with secondary dystonia have achieved reductions in disability and pain that approach those documented for primary dystonia.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207