A pilot trial of square biphasic pulse deep brain stimulation for dystonia: The BIP dystonia study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background : Dystonia often has inconsistent benefits and requires more energy‐demanding DBS settings. Studies suggest that squared biphasic pulses could provide significant clinical benefit; however, dystonia patients have not been explored. Objectives : To assess safety and tolerability of square biphasic DBS in dystonia patients. Methods : This study included primary generalized or cervical dystonia patients with bilateral GPi DBS. Square biphasic pulses were implemented and patients were assessed at baseline, immediately postwashout, post–30‐minute washout, 1 hour post‐ and 2 hours postinitiation of investigational settings. Results : Ten participants completed the study. There were no patient‐reported or clinician‐observed side effects. There was improvement across time on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (χ 2 = 10.7; P = 0.031). Similar improvement was detected in objective gait measurements. Conclusions : Square biphasic stimulation appears safe and feasible in dystonia patients with GPi DBS. Further studies are needed to evaluate possible effectiveness particularly in cervical and gait features. © 2016 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".