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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.066
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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