MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151504934 · doi:10.3171/foc.2004.17.1.5

The Canadian multicenter trial of pallidal deep brain stimulation for cervical dystonia: preliminary results in three patients

2004· article· en· W2151504934 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zelma H. T. Kiss, Kristina Doig, Michael Eliasziw, Ranjiit Ranawaya, Oksana Suchowersky

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgical FOCUS · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical dystoniaDeep brain stimulationSpasmodic TorticollisDystoniaMedicineBeck Depression InventoryRating scalePhysical therapyTorticollisQuality of life (healthcare)Movement disordersPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologySurgeryInternal medicineParkinson's diseasePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus internus (GPi) is beneficial for generalized dystonia and has been proposed as a treatment for cervical dystonia. The Canadian Stereotactic/Functional and Movement Disorders Groups designed a pilot project to investigate the following hypothesis: that bilateral DBS of the GPi will reduce the severity of cervical dystonia at 1 year of follow up, as scored in a blinded fashion by two neurologists using the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS). Secondary outcome measures included pain and disability subscores of the TWSTRS, Short Form-36 quality of life index, and the Beck Depression Inventory. METHODS: Three patients have undergone surgery in Calgary with a follow-up duration of 7.4 +/- 5.9 months (mean +/- standard deviation). One patient underwent inadvertent ineffective stimulation for the first 3 months and did not experience a benefit until DBS programming was corrected. All three patients had rapid response to stimulation, with the muscles relaxing immediately and abnormal movements improving within days. Total TWSTRS scores improved by 79%, and severity subscores improved significantly, from 15.7 +/- 2.1 to 7.7 +/- 2.9 (paired t-test, p = 0.02). Pain and disability subscores improved from 25.5 +/- 4.1 to 3.3 +/- 3.1 (paired t-test, p = 0.002) and from 13.3 +/- 4.9 to 3.3 +/- 4.2 (paired t-test, p = 0.06), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is too early to reach broad conclusions, this report of preliminary results confirms the efficacy of DBS of the GPi for cervical dystonia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgical FOCUSSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207