MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2345605102 · doi:10.1002/9781118801086.ch14

Deep brain stimulation

2015· other· en· W2345605102 on OpenAlexaff
Shane McInerney, Peter Giacobbe, Anna Cyriac, Sidney H. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedial forebrain bundleNucleus accumbensStimulationGyrusNeuroscienceBrain stimulation rewardPlaceboMedicineBrain stimulationPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineCentral nervous systemDopaminePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a serious mental illness which has a high prevalence rate and 30% of patients are treatment resistant. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an emerging treatment for treatment-resistant depressed patients. There have been a number of sites of neurosurgical intervention chosen with the subcallosal cingulate gyrus (SCG) as being the most investigated thus far. Other sites for deep brain stimulation include the medial forebrain bundle, the ventral capsule and the nucleus accumbens. This chapter will explore the evidence base for each of these sites of stimulation. Given the invasiveness of the procedure, it is vital that the side effects from the procedure itself, along with longer term potential side effects such as effects on cognition, are discussed. All potential side effects involved in the process of DBS will be outlined in this chapter from the evidence in the literature. Although the results thus far are encouraging for those with TRD, large-scale, placebo-controlled trials are needed to enhance the evidence base for the use of DBS for TRD.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→