Speech and language adverse effects after thalamotomy and deep brain stimulation in patients with movement disorders: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The thalamus has been a surgical target for the treatment of various movement disorders. Commonly used therapeutic modalities include ablative and nonablative procedures. A major clinical side effect of thalamic surgery is the appearance of speech problems. OBJECTIVE: This review summarizes the data on the development of speech problems after thalamic surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using nine databases, including Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We also checked for articles by searching citing and cited articles. We retrieved studies between 1960 and September 2014. RESULTS: Of a total of 2,320 patients, 19.8% (confidence interval: 14.8-25.9) had speech difficulty after thalamotomy. Speech difficulty occurred in 15% (confidence interval: 9.8-22.2) of those treated with a unilaterally and 40.6% (confidence interval: 29.5-52.8) of those treated bilaterally. Speech impairment was noticed 2- to 3-fold more commonly after left-sided procedures (40.7% vs. 15.2%). Of the 572 patients that underwent DBS, 19.4% (confidence interval: 13.1-27.8) experienced speech difficulty. Subgroup analysis revealed that this complication occurs in 10.2% (confidence interval: 7.4-13.9) of patients treated unilaterally and 34.6% (confidence interval: 21.6-50.4) treated bilaterally. After thalamotomy, the risk was higher in Parkinson's patients compared to patients with essential tremor: 19.8% versus 4.5% in the unilateral group and 42.5% versus 13.9% in the bilateral group. After DBS, this rate was higher in essential tremor patients. CONCLUSION: Both lesioning and stimulation thalamic surgery produce adverse effects on speech. Left-sided and bilateral procedures are approximately 3-fold more likely to cause speech difficulty. This effect was higher after thalamotomy compared to DBS. In the thalamotomy group, the risk was higher in Parkinson's patients, whereas in the DBS group it was higher in patients with essential tremor. Understanding the pathophysiology of speech disturbance after thalamic procedures is a priority. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".