Deep Brain Stimulation as a Treatment for Refractory Epilepsy: Review of the Current State-of-the-Art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epilepsy affects ∼ 1% of the global population, and 33% of patients are nonresponsive to medication and must seek alternative treatment options. Alternative options such as surgery and ablation exist but are not appropriate treatment plans for some patients. Neurostimulation methods such as vagal nerve stimulation, responsive neural stimulation, and deep brain stimulation (DBS) are viable alternatives for medically refractory patients. DBS stimulation has been used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, dystonia, and pain management. For the treatment of epilepsy, DBS has been found to be an effective treatment plan, with promising results of reduced seizure frequency and intensity. In this review, we discuss DBS surgery and equipment, mechanisms of DBS for epilepsy, and efficacy, technological specifications, and suggestions for future research. We also review a historical summary of experiments involving DBS for epilepsy. Our literature review suggests that further studies are warranted for medically refractory epilepsy using 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".