Worsening essential tremor following deep brain stimulation: disease progression versus tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major concern regarding ventralis intermedius nucleus deep brain stimulation for essential tremor has been the loss of surgical efficacy over time in a minority of patients. Some experts have ascribed the worsening tremor to tolerance, while other evidence has suggested that disease progression may play a role. Suboptimal lead placement has also been reported to be a factor in worsening tremor following deep-brain stimulation; however, most authors consider this phenomenon to manifest within a few months of the actual surgery. We aimed to dissect the tolerance versus disease progression issue by analysing preoperative versus long-term post-surgical Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale scores both on and off stimulation among 28 patients who underwent ventralis intermedius nucleus deep brain stimulation and 21 age-matched controls. Of the 28 patients in the treatment arm of the cohort, seven (25%) demonstrated evidence of tremor progression, and had a 34% increase in the tremor score off stimulation at the 36 month follow-up compared with a 32% increase among controls (P = 0.67). In one of the seven patients there was evidence of suboptimal lead placement given the lateral position of the lead, and the motor side effects during threshold testing. This patient demonstrated a loss of stimulation benefit between 24 and 36 months, which may have been more indicative of tolerance. The other six subjects (86%) maintained stimulation benefit throughout the follow-up period, despite worsening tremor off stimulation (at a comparable rate to that of controls), making disease progression the most likely explanation. The data suggest that deep brain stimulation tolerance may be over-reported in the literature, and that a tolerance versus disease progression work-up should include: examining the trend in off stimulation scores, accounting for image based lead locations, and during programming sessions checking for thresholds which may elicit clinical benefits and side effects.
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".