Is the target for thalamic deep brain stimulation the same as for thalamotomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has virtually replaced thalamotomy for the treatment of essential tremor. It is thought that the site for DBS is the same as the optimal lesion site; however, this match has not been investigated previously. We sought to determine whether the location of thalamic DBS matched the site at which thalamotomy would be performed. Eleven patients who had detailed microelectrode recording and stimulation for placement of DBS electrodes and subsequent successful tremor control were analysed. An experienced surgeon, blinded to outcome and final electrode position, selected the ideal thalamotomy site based on the reconstructed maps obtained intraoperatively. When the site of long-term clinically used DBS and theoretical thalamotomy location was calculated in three-dimensional space and compared for each of the x, y, and z axes in stereotactic space, there was no significant difference in the mediolateral location of DBS and theoretical lesion site. There was also no difference between the theoretical lesion site and the placement of the tip of the electrode; however, the active electrodes used for chronic stimulation were significantly more anterior (P = 0.005) and dorsal (P = 0.034) to the ideal thalamotomy target. This mismatch may reflect the compromise required between adverse and beneficial effects with chronic stimulation, but it also suggests different mechanisms of effect of DBS and thalamotomy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".