Bilateral deep brain stimulation for cervical dystonia in patients with previous peripheral surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no data available concerning whether patients with cervical dystonia who have recurrent or new symptoms after peripheral denervation surgery benefit similarly from pallidal deep brain stimulation compared with patients who receive primarily pallidal stimulation. METHODS: Data on 7 cervical dystonia patients with recurrent or progressive dystonia after peripheral denervation who underwent pallidal stimulation were prospectively collected. Deep brain stimulation was performed in Mannheim/Hannover, Germany, or in Umea, Sweden. To the subgroup from Mannheim/Hannover, a second group of patients without previous peripheral surgery was matched. Assessments included the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden dystonia rating scale, as well as the Tsui scale in the Swedish patients. RESULTS: The 4 patients from Mannheim/Hannover experienced sustained improvement from pallidal stimulation by a mean of 57.5% according to the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (P < .05) and by a mean of 69.5% according to the Burke-Fahn-Marsden dystonia rating scale (P < .05) at long-term follow-up of 40.5 months. The patients from Umea had a mean Tsui score of 7 prior to surgery and a mean score of 3 at the mean follow-up of 8 months (62.5%). In the matched group the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale improved by 58.8% and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden dystonia rating scale by 67% (P < .05) at long-term follow-up (mean, 41.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had prior peripheral surgery for cervical dystonia experience improvement from subsequent pallidal stimulation that is comparable to that of de novo patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".