Pedunculopontine nucleus deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease: A clinical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedunculopontine nucleus region deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising but experimental therapy for axial motor deficits in Parkinson's disease (PD), particularly gait freezing and falls. Here, we summarise the clinical application and outcomes reported during the past 10 years. The published dataset is limited, comprising fewer than 100 cases. Furthermore, there is great variability in clinical methodology between and within surgical centers. The most common indication has been severe medication refractory gait freezing (often associated with postural instability). Some patients received lone pedunculopontine nucleus DBS (unilateral or bilateral) and some received costimulation of the subthalamic nucleus or internal pallidum. Both rostral and caudal pedunculopontine nucleus subregions have been targeted. However, the spread of stimulation and variance in targeting means that neighboring brain stem regions may be implicated in any response. Low stimulation frequencies are typically employed (20-80 Hertz). The fluctuating nature of gait freezing can confound programming and outcome assessments. Although firm conclusions cannot be drawn on therapeutic efficacy, the literature suggests that medication refractory gait freezing and falls can improve. The impact on postural instability is unclear. Most groups report a lack of benefit on gait or limb akinesia or dopaminergic medication requirements. The key question is whether pedunculopontine nucleus DBS can improve quality of life in PD. So far, the evidence supporting such an effect is minimal. Development of pedunculopontine nucleus DBS to become a reliable, established therapy would likely require a collaborative effort between experienced centres to clarify biomarkers predictive of response and the optimal clinical methodology. © 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".