MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081301348 · doi:10.1002/mds.25123

Clinicopathological study in progressive supranuclear palsy with pedunculopontine stimulation

2012· article· en· W2081301348 on OpenAlexafffund
Lili‐Naz Hazrati, Janice Wong, Clement Hamani, Andrés M. Lozano, Yu‐Yan Poon, Jonathan O. Dostrovsky, William D. Hutchison, Cindy Zadikoff, Elena Moro

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPedunculopontine nucleusProgressive supranuclear palsyDeep brain stimulationPedunculopontine Tegmental NucleusMedicineSubthalamic nucleusAutopsyMovement disordersNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCholinergicParkinson's diseasePathologyAtrophyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) DBS has emerged as a potential intervention for patients with gait and balance disorders. However, targeting this nucleus can be challenging. We report on the first neuropathological analyses after PPN-DBS surgery in advanced progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). METHODS: Two patients with PSP underwent unilateral PPN-DBS surgery and were clinically followed to autopsy. Both patients underwent postmortem neuropathological analysis, including choline acetyltransferase immunohistochemistry, to ascertain PPN boundaries and electrode location. RESULTS: Both patients experienced partial improvement in some motor and nonmotor domains postintervention, but died shortly of other complications. Postmortem neuropathological analysis of each patient confirmed the electrode in a region of cholinergic neuronal loss corresponding to the PPN. CONCLUSIONS: We provide histopathological evidence for the validity of our stereotactic approach to target the PPN and correlate electrode location with clinical outcomes.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207