MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064190004 · doi:10.3171/jns.2007.106.1.101

Statistical determination of the optimal subthalamic nucleus stimulation site in patients with Parkinson disease

2007· article· en· W2064190004 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique Guehl, Roderick Edwards, Emmanuel Cuny, Pierre Burbaud, Alain Rougier, Julien Modolo, Anne Beuter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusMedicineParkinson's diseaseDeep brain stimulationNeuroscienceStimulationNucleusCentral nervous system diseaseDiseasePathologySurgeryInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The subthalamic nucleus (STN) is currently recognized as the preferred target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). If there is agreement in the literature that DBS improves motor symptoms significantly, the situation is less clear with respect to the side effects of this procedure. The goal of this study was to correlate the coordinate values of active electrode contacts with the amplitude of residual clinical symptoms and side effects using a mathematical approach. METHODS: In this study the investigators examined a cohort of 41 patients with PD who received clinical benefits from DBS after stimulating electrodes had been implanted bilaterally into the STN. The combined scores of residual clinical symptoms plus side effects, including speech disturbance, postural instability, and weight gain, were fitted by using either inverted ellipsoidal exponefitials or smooth splines. These analyses showed evidence of lower combined scores for stimulating contacts at an x coordinate approximately 12.0 to 12.3 mm lateral to the anterior commissure-posterior commissure (AC-PC) line and at a z coordinate approximately 3.1 to 3.3 mm under the AC-PC line. There was insufficient evidence for a preferred y coordinate location. CONCLUSIONS: The authors propose a "best" therapeutic ellipse area that is centered at an x, z location of 12.5 mm, -3.3 mm and characterized by an extension of 1.85 mm in the x direction and 2.22 mm in the z direction. Therapeutic electrode contacts located within this area are well correlated with the lowest occurrence of residual symptoms and the lowest occurrence of side effects independent of STN anatomical considerations. The lack of a significant result in the y direction remains to be explored further.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations51
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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