Epidural premotor cortical stimulation in primary focal dystonia: Clinical and <sup>18</sup> F‐fluoro deoxyglucose positron emission tomography open study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of epidural premotor stimulation in patients with primary focal dystonia. Seven patients were selected: 6 had cervical dystonia and 1 had right upper limb dystonia. In 2 patients, sustained muscle contractions led to a prevalently fixed head posture. Patients with cervical dystonia received a bilateral implant, whereas the patient with hand dystonia received a unilateral implant. Neurological and neuropsychological evaluations were performed before surgery (baseline), and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months afterward. The Burke-Fahn-Marsden scale (BFMS) and the Toronto Western spasmodic torticollis rating scale (TWSTRS) were administered at the same time points. Patients underwent resting (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) scans, before and 12 months after surgery. No adverse events occurred. An overall improvement was observed on the BFMS and TWSTRS after surgery. Patients with prevalently fixed cervical dystonia had a reduced benefit. Presurgical neuroimaging revealed a significant bilateral metabolic increase in the sensorimotor areas, which was reduced after surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".