MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077737902 · doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.111

PET Functional Imaging of Deep Brain Stimulation in Movement Disorders and Psychiatry

2009· review· en· W2077737902 on OpenAlexaff
Bénédicte Ballanger, Marjan Jahanshahi, Emmanuel Broussolle, Stéphane Thobois

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationSubthalamic nucleusNeuroscienceDystoniaMovement disordersEssential tremorStimulationFunctional imagingParkinson's diseasePsychologyDepression (economics)Functional electrical stimulationNeuroimagingMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) represents a major advance in the treatment of various severe movement disorders or neuropsychiatric diseases. Our understanding of the mechanism of action of this surgical treatment has greatly benefited from functional imaging studies. Most of these studies have been conducted in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) treated by bilateral subthalamic nucleus (STN) stimulation. These studies have notably underlined the fact that STN stimulation influences motor, limbic, or associative cortical-subcortical loops in various (sometimes contradictory) ways. We present an up-to-date review of the information provided by functional imaging studies in surgery for PD, dystonia, tremor, as well as in psychiatric disorders such as depression or obsessive-compulsive disorder. On the basis of this information, proposed mechanisms of action of DBS are discussed, as well as the need for additional approaches such as improved anatomical localization of the contact used for stimulation or a better understanding of the electrical distribution around the electrode.

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations50
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cerebral Blood Flow & MetabolismSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207