MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022745499 · doi:10.1002/mds.23151

Standard guidelines for publication of deep brain stimulation studies in Parkinson's disease (Guide4DBS‐PD)

2010· article· en· W2022745499 on OpenAlexaff
Jerrold L. Vitek, Kelly E. Lyons, Roy A.E. Bakay, Alim‐Louis Benabid, Günther Deuschl, Mark Hallett, Roger Kurlan, Joseph J. Pancrazio, Ali R. Rezai, Benjamin L. Walter, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthEisaiGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationParkinson's diseaseChecklistMedicineDiseaseMovement disordersClinical neurologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyNeurosciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of neurological disorders has risen substantially over the last decade, it is often difficult to compare the results from different studies due to the lack of consistent reporting of key study parameters. We present guidelines to standardize the reporting of clinical studies of DBS for Parkinson's disease (PD). These guidelines provide a minimal set of required data elements to facilitate the interpretation and comparison of results across published clinical studies. The guidelines, summarized in the format of a checklist, may also have utility in the planning of clinical studies of DBS for PD as well as other neurological and psychiatric disorders.

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)0.195
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.384
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1950.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0310.022
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0130.008
Research integrity0.0190.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.038

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.316 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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