MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Central Nystagmus Induced by Deep‐Brain Stimulation for Epilepsy

2000· article· en· W2461887561 on OpenAlexaff
R B Taylor, Richard Wennberg, Andrés M. Lozano, James Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNystagmusThalamusStimulationEpilepsySuperior colliculusNeuroscienceOptokinetic reflexDeep brain stimulationOptic tractInferior colliculusElectronystagmographyPsychologyMedicineEye movementAnatomyAudiologyNucleusOptic nerveInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The goal of the present study was to describe the localization of central nystagmus induced as a side effect of electrical deep-brain stimulation for epilepsy. METHODS: Bilateral deep-brain stimulating electrodes were inserted in the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus to control seizures in a patient with intractable epilepsy. RESULTS: Cathodal high-frequency stimulation through the deepest contact of each electrode elicited cycles of slow ipsiversive conjugate eye deviations, each followed by rapid contralateral jerks. The involved electrode contacts were situated at the mesodiencephalic junction just inferior to the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus and rostral to the superior colliculus. Right-sided stimulation evoked left beating nystagmus and left-sided stimulation evoked right beating nystagmus. Stimulation through other electrode contacts did not induce nystagmus. Electronystagmography showed the nystagmus to have constant velocity slow phases. CONCLUSIONS: A central nystagmogenic area exists in humans that appears to be homologous to the nucleus of the optic tract, a region described in nonhuman primates to play a role in the generation of optokinetic nystagmus.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207