MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032376916 · doi:10.3171/jns.2003.99.3.0489

Long-term follow up of bilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in patients with advanced Parkinson disease

2003· article· en· W2032376916 on OpenAlexaff
Galit Kleiner‐Fisman, David N. Fisman, Elspeth Sime, Jean A. Saint‐Cyr, Andrés M. Lozano, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeep brain stimulationSubthalamic nucleusDyskinesiaCohortRating scaleParkinson's diseaseConfidence intervalSurgeryAnesthesiaDiseaseInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) has been associated with a marked initial improvement in individuals with advanced Parkinson disease (PD). Few data are available on the long-term outcomes of this procedure, however, or whether the initial benefits are sustained over time. The authors present the long-term results of a cohort of 25 individuals who underwent bilateral DBS of the STN between 1996 and 2001 and were followed up for 1 year or longer after implantation of the stimulator. METHODS: Patients were evaluated at baseline and repeatedly after surgery by using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS); the scale was applied to patients during periods in which antiparkinsonian medications were effective and periods when their effects had worn off. Postoperative UPDRS total scores and subscores, dyskinesia scores, and drug dosages were compared with baseline values, and changes in the patients' postoperative scores were evaluated to assess the possibility that the effect of DBS diminished over time. In this cohort the median duration of follow-up review was 24 months (range 12-52 months). The combined (ADL and motor) total UPDRS score during the medication-off period improved after 1 year, decreasing by 42% relative to baseline (95% confidence interval [CI 35-50%], p < 0.001) and the motor score decreased by 48% (95% CI 42-55%, p < 0.001). These gains did diminish over time, although a sustained clinical benefit remained at the time of the last evaluation (41% improvement over baseline, 95% CI 31-50%; p < 0.001). Axial subscores at the time of the last evaluation showed only a trend toward improvement (p = 0.08), in contrast to scores for total tremor (p < 0.001), rigidity (p < 0.001), and bradykinesia (p = 0.003), for which highly significant differences from baseline were still present at the time of the last evaluation. Medication requirements diminished substantially, with total medication doses reduced by 38% (95% CI 27-48%, p < 0.001) at 1 year and 36% (95% CI 25-48%, p < 0.001) at the time of the last evaluation; this decrease may have accounted, at least in part, for the significant decrease of 46.4% (95% CI 20.2-72.5%, p = 0.007) in dyskinesia scores obtained by patients during the medication-on period. No preoperative demographic variable, such as the patient's age at the time of disease onset, age at surgery, sex, duration of disease before surgery, preoperative drug dosage, or preoperative severity of dyskinesia, was predictive of long-term outcome. The only predictor of a better outcome was the patient's preoperative response to levodopa. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients with advanced PD who underwent bilateral DBS of the STN, sustained improvement in motor function was present a mean of 2 years after the procedure, and sustained reductions in drug requirements were also achieved. Improvements in tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia were more marked and better sustained over time than improvements in axial symptoms. A good preoperative response to levodopa predicted a good response to surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations348
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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