MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022198572 · doi:10.3171/jns.2002.96.6.1058

A metaanalysis comparing the results of pallidotomy performed using microelectrode recording or macroelectrode stimulation

2002· review· en· W2022198572 on OpenAlexaff
Ravikant S. Palur, Çağlar Berk, Michael Schulzer, Christopher R. Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPallidotomyMedicineDeep brain stimulationWeaknessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationParkinson's diseaseRating scaleRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPhysical therapySurgeryPsychologyDiseaseInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: There is an active debate regarding whether pallidotomy should be performed using macroelectrode stimulation or the more sophisticated and expensive method of microelectrode recording. No prospective, randomized trial results have answered this question, although personnel at many centers claim one method is superior. In their metaanalysis the authors reviewed published reports of both methods to determine if there is a significant difference in clinical outcomes or complication rates associated with these methods. METHODS: A metaanalysis was performed with data from reports on the use of unilateral pallidotomy in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) that were published between 1992 and 2000. A Medline search was conducted for the key word "pallidotomy" and additional studies were added following a review of the references. Only those studies dealing with unilateral procedures performed in patients with PD were included. Papers were excluded if they described a cohort smaller than 10 patients or a follow-up period shorter than 3 months or included cases that previously had been reported. The primary end points for outcome were the percentages of improvement in dyskinesias and in motor scores determined by the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS). Complications were categorized as mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, visual deficit, speech deficit, cognitive decline, weakness, and other. There were no significant differences between the two methods with respect to improvements in dyskinesias (p = 0.66) or UPDRS motor scores (p = 0.62). Microelectrode recording was associated with a significantly higher (p = 0.012) intracranial hemorrhage rate (1.3 +/- 0.4%), compared with macroelectrode stimulation (0.25 +/- 0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In reports of patients with PD who underwent unilateral pallidotomy, operations that included microelectrode recording were associated with a small, but significantly higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage; however, there was no difference in postoperative reduction of dyskinesia or bradykinesia compared with operations that included macroelectrode stimulation.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations84
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207