MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162093890 · doi:10.1002/mds.20047

Tremor induced by thalamic deep brain stimulation in patients with complex regional facial pain

2004· article· en· W2162093890 on OpenAlexaff
Constantine Constantoyannis, Ajit Kumar, A. Jon Stoessl, Christopher R. Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement DisordersUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThalamusDeep brain stimulationStimulationThalamic stimulatorNeuroscienceEssential tremorPsychologyMedicineParkinson's diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on two patients who developed a new postural and action tremor after chronic stimulation of the contralateral thalamus (VPM nucleus) during treatment of a complex regional facial pain syndrome. The tremor was only present during deep brain stimulation (DBS) and was suppressed with adjustment of the stimulation parameters. Tremor was seen only with low frequency stimulation (50 Hz or lower) and disappeared with higher stimulation frequencies. In addition to being an unusual side effect of thalamic DBS, we believe that this phenomenon affords insight into one possible mechanism underlying essential tremor (ET). A central oscillatory mechanism involving the olivocerebellar complex and the thalamus, which is a part of the cerebro-cerebello-cerebral circuit, is thought to play an important role in the genesis of ET. Induction of a tremor resembling ET in our patients indicates an active role for low frequency stimulation. A plausible explanation for this is that low frequency stimulation in the thalamic area enhances the output of the tremor-producing network. This leads credence to the concept of central oscillations in a "tremor circuit," of which the thalamus is a part, as being important in ET.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207