MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159518696 · doi:10.3171/2013.8.jns13844

A randomized double-blind crossover trial comparing subthalamic and pallidal deep brain stimulation for dystonia

2013· article· en· W2159518696 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisbeth Schjerling, Lena E. Hjermind, Bo Jespersen, Flemming Madsen, Jannick Brennum, Steen Rusborg Jensen, Annemette Løkkegaard, Merete Karlsborg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedicineDystoniaSubthalamic nucleusCrossover studyDouble blindPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialBrain stimulationNeuroscienceStimulationParkinson's diseasePsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicinePsychologyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECT: The authors' aim was to compare the subthalamic nucleus (STN) with the globus pallidus internus (GPi) as a stimulation target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) for medically refractory dystonia. METHODS: In a prospective double-blind crossover study, electrodes were bilaterally implanted in the STN and GPi of 12 patients with focal, multifocal, or generalized dystonia. Each patient was randomly selected to undergo initial bilateral stimulation of either the STN or the GPi for 6 months, followed by bilateral stimulation of the other nucleus for another 6 months. Preoperative and postoperative ratings were assessed by using the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS) and video recordings. Quality of life was evaluated by using questionnaires (36-item Short Form Health Survey). Supplemental Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) scores were assessed for patients with focal dystonia (torticollis) by examining the video recordings. RESULTS: On average for all patients, DBS improved the BFMDRS movement scores (p < 0.05) and quality of life physical scores (p < 0.01). After stimulation of the STN, the mean 6-month improvement in BFMDRS movement score was 13.8 points; after stimulation of the GPi, this improvement was 9.1 points (p = 0.08). Quality of life did not differ significantly regardless of which nucleus was stimulated. All 12 patients accepted 6 months of stimulation of the STN, but only 7 accepted 6 months of stimulation of the GPi. Among those who rejected stimulation of the GPi, 3 accepted concomitant stimulation of both the STN and GPi for 6 months, resulting in improved quality of life physical and mental scores and BFMDRS movement scores. Among the 4 patients who were rated according to TWSTRS, after 6 months of stimulation of both the STN and GPi, TWSTRS scores improved by 4.7% after stimulation of the GPi and 50.8% after stimulation of the STN (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The STN seems to be a well-accepted, safe, and promising stimulation target in the treatment of dystonia, but further studies are necessary before the optimal target can be concluded. Simultaneous stimulation of the STN and GPi should be further investigated. Clinical trial registration no.: KF 01-110/01 (Committees on Biomedical Research Ethics of the Capital Region of Denmark).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations123
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207