Long term outcome of unilateral pallidotomy: follow up of 15 patients for 3 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With the advent of new antiparkinsonian drug therapy and promising results from subthalamic and pallidal stimulation, this study evaluated the long term efficacy of unilateral pallidotomy, a technique which has gained popularity over the past decade for the management of advanced Parkinson's disease. METHODS: The 15 patients reported here are part of the original cohort of 24 patients who underwent posteroventral pallidotomy for motor fluctuations and disabling dyskinesias 3 years ago as part of a prospective study. Evaluation scales included the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale, the Goetz dyskinesia scale, and the Purdue pegboard test. RESULTS: When compared with the prepallidotomy scores, the reduction in the limb dyskinesias and off state tremor scores persisted on the side contralateral to pallidotomy at the end of 3 years (dyskinesias were reduced by 64% (p<0.01) and tremor by 63% (p<0.05). Other measures tended to deteriorate. The dosage of antiparkinsonian medications did not change significantly from 3 months prepallidotomy to 3 years postpallidotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although unilateral pallidotomy is useful in controlling the contralateral dyskinesias and tremor 3 years after surgery, all other early benefits disappear and activities of daily living continue to worsen.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".