MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121397527 · doi:10.1177/1352458509345914

Thalamic stimulation in multiple sclerosis: evidence for a ‘demyelinative thalamotomy’

2009· article· en· W2121397527 on OpenAlexaff
GR Wayne Moore, Aleksander Vitali, Esther Leung, Cornelia Laule, Piotr Kozłowski, Alex L. MacKay, Christopher R. Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueMultiple Sclerosis Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationThalamusWhite matterMultiple sclerosisThalamic stimulatorThalamotomyEssential tremorNeuroscienceMedicineStimulationCortex (anatomy)PathologyMagnetic resonance imagingParkinson's diseasePsychologyRadiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism of action of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the alleviation of tremor in multiple sclerosis (MS) and other neurological disorders is unknown. Moreover, whether the trauma accompanying this surgery is responsible for the induction of new MS plaques is controversial. Here we report the first description of the post-mortem imaging and pathologic findings in the brain of a MS patient who underwent thalamic DBS for the treatment of MS-induced tremor. MR imaging of formalin-fixed brain slices was carried out at 1.5, 3 and 7 Tesla and correlated with the histopathology. There were numerous demyelinative plaques in the white mater, cortex and deep gray matter. There were no plaques along the DBS tract within the sections that sampled the deep hemispheric white matter. However, deep within the thalamus focal demyelination approximated the tract, particularly in the region corresponding to the electrical field. The findings in this single case raise the possibility that focal demyelination may be induced by the electrical field and this may be responsible for long-lasting alleviation of tremor in the absence of continued electrostimulation.

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)0.002
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.090 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultiple Sclerosis JournalSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207