MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155911659 · doi:10.1093/brain/awq022

Dystonia in neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation: outcome of bilateral pallidal stimulation

2010· article· en· W2155911659 on OpenAlexaff
Lars Timmermann, K. Amande M. Pauls, K. Wieland, Robert Jech, Gerhard Kurlemann, Nutan Sharma, Sharoon Gill, C. A. Haenggeli, Susan J. Hayflick, Penelope Hogarth, Klaus L. Leenders, Patricia Limousin, C. J. Malanga, Elena Moro, Jill L. Ostrem, Fredy J. Revilla, Patrick Santens, Alfons Schnitzler, Stephen Tisch, Francesc Valldeoriola, Jan Vesper, Jens Volkmann, D. Woitalla, Selçuk Peker

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungAction Medical ResearchBrain Research TrustNBIA Disorders Association
KeywordsDystoniaDeep brain stimulationMovement disordersRating scaleMedicinePsychologyNeurodegenerationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsNeuroscienceInternal medicineParkinson's diseaseDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation encompasses a heterogeneous group of rare neurodegenerative disorders that are characterized by iron accumulation in the brain. Severe generalized dystonia is frequently a prominent symptom and can be very disabling, causing gait impairment, difficulty with speech and swallowing, pain and respiratory distress. Several case reports and one case series have been published concerning therapeutic outcome of pallidal deep brain stimulation in dystonia caused by neurodegeneration with brain iron degeneration, reporting mostly favourable outcomes. However, with case studies, there may be a reporting bias towards favourable outcome. Thus, we undertook this multi-centre retrospective study to gather worldwide experiences with bilateral pallidal deep brain stimulation in patients with neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation. A total of 16 centres contributed 23 patients with confirmed neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation and bilateral pallidal deep brain stimulation. Patient details including gender, age at onset, age at operation, genetic status, magnetic resonance imaging status, history and clinical findings were requested. Data on severity of dystonia (Burke Fahn Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale-Motor Scale, Barry Albright Dystonia Scale), disability (Burke Fahn Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale-Disability Scale), quality of life (subjective global rating from 1 to 10 obtained retrospectively from patient and caregiver) as well as data on supportive therapy, concurrent pharmacotherapy, stimulation settings, adverse events and side effects were collected. Data were collected once preoperatively and at 2-6 and 9-15 months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was change in severity of dystonia. The mean improvement in severity of dystonia was 28.5% at 2-6 months and 25.7% at 9-15 months. At 9-15 months postoperatively, 66.7% of patients showed an improvement of 20% or more in severity of dystonia, and 31.3% showed an improvement of 20% or more in disability. Global quality of life ratings showed a median improvement of 83.3% at 9-15 months. Severity of dystonia preoperatively and disease duration predicted improvement in severity of dystonia at 2-6 months; this failed to reach significance at 9-15 months. The study confirms that dystonia in neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation improves with bilateral pallidal deep brain stimulation, although this improvement is not as great as the benefit reported in patients with primary generalized dystonias or some other secondary dystonias. The patients with more severe dystonia seem to benefit more. A well-controlled, multi-centre prospective study is necessary to enable evidence-based therapeutic decisions and better predict therapeutic outcomes.

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)0.001
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations191
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207