MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-term follow-up of patients with thalamic deep brain stimulation for epilepsy

2006· article· en· W2167080967 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle M. Andrade, Dominik Zumsteg, Clement Hamani, Mojgan Hodaie, Shant Der Sarkissian, Andrés M. Lozano, Richard Wennberg

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationEpilepsyStimulationMedicineThalamic stimulatorThalamusAnesthesiaElectroencephalographyNeurosciencePsychologyInternal medicineParkinson's diseasePsychiatryRadiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors describe long-term follow-up (mean, 5 years) in patients with anterior (AN) (n = 6) or centromedian (n = 2) thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) for epilepsy. Five patients (all AN) had > or = 50% seizure reduction, although benefit was delayed in two until years 5 to 6, after changes in antiepileptic drugs. DBS electrode implantation in AN patients was followed by seizure reduction 1 to 3 months before active stimulation, raising the possibility of a beneficial microthalamotomy effect.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations297
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207