Inclusion and exclusion criteria for DBS in dystonia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When considering a patient with dystonia for deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery several factors need to be considered. Level B evidence has shown that all motor features and associated pain in primary generalized and segmental dystonia are potentially responsive to globus pallidus internus (GPi) DBS. However, improvements in clinical series of ≥ 90% may reflect methods that need improvement, and larger prospective studies are needed to address these factors. Nevertheless, to date the selection criteria for DBS-specifically in terms of patient features (severity and nature of symptoms, age, time of evolution, or any other demographic or disease aspects)--have not been assessed in a systematic fashion. In general, dystonia patients are not considered for DBS unless medical therapies have been previously and extensively tested. The vast majority of reported patients have had DBS surgery when the disease was provoking important disability, with loss of independence and impaired quality of life. There does not appear to be an upper age limit or a minimum age limit, although there are no published data regarding the outcome of GPi DBS for dystonia in children younger than 7 years of age. There is currently no enough evidence to prove that subjects with primary--generalized dystonia who undergo DBS at an early age and sooner rather than later after disease onset may gain more benefit from DBS than those undergoing DBS after the development of fixed skeletal deformities. There is no enough evidence to refuse or support consideration of DBS in patients with previous ablative procedures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it