MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755502992 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0140-17.2017

Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation: Basic Concepts and Novel Perspectives

2017· review· en· W2755502992 on OpenAlexaff
Clement Hamani, Gerson Florence, Helmut Heinsen, Birgit R. Plantinga, Yasin Temel, Kâmil Uludaǧ, Eduardo Joaquim Lopes Alho, Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira, Edson Amaro, Erich Talamoni Fonoff

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusDeep brain stimulationNeuroscienceEfferentNeuroimagingParkinson's diseaseStimulationNucleusAfferentMedicinePsychologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decades, extensive basic and clinical knowledge has been acquired on the use of subthalamic nucleus (STN) deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson's disease (PD). It is now clear that mechanisms involved in the effects of this therapy are far more complex than previously anticipated. At frequencies commonly used in clinical practice, neural elements may be excited or inhibited and novel dynamic states of equilibrium are reached. Electrode contacts used for chronic DBS in PD are placed near the dorsal border of the nucleus, a highly cellular region. DBS may thus exert its effects by modulating these cells, hyperdirect projections from motor cortical areas, afferent and efferent fibers to the motor STN. Advancements in neuroimaging techniques may allow us to identify these structures optimizing surgical targeting. In this review, we provide an update on mechanisms and the neural elements modulated by STN DBS.

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)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations168
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207