Primary Dystonia Is More Responsive than Secondary Dystonia to Pallidal Interventions: Outcome after Pallidotomy or Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The response of patients with dystonia to pallidal procedures is not well understood. In this study, we assessed the postoperative outcome of patients with primary and secondary dystonia undergoing pallidotomy or pallidal deep brain stimulation. METHODS: Fifteen patients with dystonia had pallidal surgery (lesions or deep brain stimulation). These included nine patients with primary dystonia (generalized and cervical dystonias) and six with secondary dystonia (generalized, segmental, and hemidystonias). There were nine male patients and six female patients. The mean age at onset was 21 years for primary dystonia and 18 years for secondary dystonia. The primary outcome measure was a Global Outcome Scale score for dystonia at 6 months after surgery. Other outcome measures were the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale scores. RESULTS: The mean Global Outcome Scale score at 6 months for patients with primary dystonia was 3 (improvement in both movement disorder and function). In contrast, patients with secondary dystonia had a mean score of 0.83 (mild or no improvement in movement disorder with no functional improvement). All patients with primary dystonia had normal brains by magnetic resonance imaging, whereas five of six patients with secondary dystonia had basal ganglia abnormalities on their magnetic resonance imaging scans. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that primary dystonia responds much better than secondary dystonia to pallidal procedures. We could not distinguish a difference in efficacy between pallidotomy and pallidal deep brain stimulation. The presence of basal ganglia abnormalities on the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan is an indicator of a lesser response to pallidal interventions for dystonia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".