Long‐term outcomes of surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease
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
The surgical lesion of different brain structures has been used as a treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) for several decades. More recently, the favored therapeutic approach has involved the administration of levodopa and the use of DBS. These two major therapeutic advances have greatly modified both the clinical condition of patients and the history of the disease. With the introduction of L-dopa in 1967, patients could regain mobility, because their akinesia, tremor, and rigidity were greatly improved, with consequent significant improvement in quality of life and increased life expectancy. However, after the so-called "honeymoon" period in which the disease seemed to be controlled, motor fluctuations and L-dopa-induced dyskinesias mitigated the initial enthusiasm. In the 1990s, unilateral pallidotomy and DBS of the globus palllidus internus and STN reduced these motor fluctuations and dyskinesias remarkably, thereby inaugurating a new era in the surgical treatment of PD. Short- and medium-term follow-up studies of patients who underwent surgery have documented sustained, significant motor benefits. However, given the progressive nature of PD and the purely symptomatic effects of pallidotomy and DBS, the long-term clinical evolution of these surgical patients currently seems to be associated with a new PD phenotype, mainly characterized by axial motor problems and cognitive impairment. Here, we analyze the long-term clinical outcomes of surgical PD patients with at least 5-year follow-up, focusing on the long-term motor symptoms that were initially responsive 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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