A waitlist control-group study of cognitive, mood, and quality of life outcome after posteroventral pallidotomy in Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The aim of this study was to examine neuropsychological outcome from unilateral posteroventral pallidotomy (PVP) in Parkinson disease while controlling for confounding factors such as test practice and disease progression. METHODS: Participants underwent baseline and 2-month follow-up assessments of cognition, quality of life, mood, and motor functioning. The surgery group (22 patients) underwent PVP (15 left, seven right) after baseline assessment. The waitlist group (14 patients) underwent PVP after follow up. At follow up, the left PVP group exhibited a decline on verbal measures of learning, fluency, working memory, and speeded color naming. The incidence of significant decline on these measures after left PVP ranged from 50 to 86%. The right PVP group did not exhibit a significant cognitive decline, but fluency did decline in 71% of patients who underwent right PVP. Participants who underwent PVP reported better bodily pain and social functioning at follow up than participants in the waitlist group. Improved bodily pain was evident for 62% of the surgery group, and social functioning improved for 19%. Surgery did not alter reported physical functioning or mood. Dyskinesia improved after surgery, but there were no improvements in "on-state" manual dexterity or handwriting. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who underwent left PVP exhibited declines in learning, fluency, working memory, and speeded color naming. Accounting for retesting effects altered the magnitude of these declines by up to one quarter of a standard deviation, but did not increase the breadth of postsurgical neuropsychological decline beyond that typically reported in the literature. It was found that PVP improved dyskinesia, bodily pain, and social functioning, but did not lead to improvement on other objective and self-reported measures of motor functioning.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".