MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063764383 · doi:10.1002/mds.20963

Deep brain stimulation: Neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric issues

2006· review· en· W2063764383 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie Voon, Cynthia S. Kubu, Paul Krack, Jean‐Luc Houéto, Alexander I. Tröster

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationNeuropsychologyCognitionParkinson's diseaseMovement disordersPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor symptomsPsychologyNeuropsychiatryMedicinePsychiatryNeuroscienceDiseaseNeuroimagingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor, cognitive, neuropsychiatric, autonomic, and other nonmotor symptoms. The efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the motor symptoms of advanced PD is well established. However, the effects of DBS on the cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms are less clear. The neuropsychiatric aspects of DBS for PD have recently been of considerable clinical and pathophysiological interest. As a companion to the preoperative and postoperative sections of the DBS consensus articles, this article reviews the published literature on the cognitive and neuropsychiatric aspects of DBS for PD. The majority of the observed neuropsychiatric symptoms are transient, treatable, and potentially preventable. Outcome studies, methodological issues, pathophysiology, and preoperative and postoperative management of the cognitive and neuropsychiatric aspects and complications of DBS for PD are discussed.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations404
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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