Pallidal deep brain stimulation influences both reflexive and voluntary saccades in Huntington's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus internus (GPi) is being evaluated as a potential new therapy for patients with Huntington's disease (HD). In addition to skeletal movement disorders, HD patients have difficulty initiating voluntary saccades and have difficulty in suppressing rapid saccades toward newly appearing stimuli. We measured several saccade parameters in an HD patient who had marked improvement of clinical symptoms with bilateral GPi DBS to determine whether oculomotor performance improved in parallel with clinical scores. Oculomotor performance was assessed using three testing paradigms: pro-saccades, anti-saccades, and memory-guided saccades. The data from the HD patient was also compared to that of two healthy controls. Pallidal DBS decreased pro-saccade latency, total movement time, and the number of correctly executed trials, as well as increasing saccade gain. Memory-saccade performance was negatively affected with stimulation: saccade gain decreased, latency increased, and the patient's ability to suppress unwanted saccades decreased with stimulation. Our data demonstrate a task-specific improvement of oculomotor deficits in this HD patient with pallidal DBS, supporting a role of GPi in oculomotor control.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".