Stereotactic radiosurgery for tremor: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to offer an objective summary of the published literature relating to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for tremor and consensus guideline recommendations. METHODS: This systematic review was performed up to December 2016. Article selection was performed by searching the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE electronic bibliographic databases. The following key words were used: "radiosurgery" and "tremor" or "Parkinson's disease" or "multiple sclerosis" or "essential tremor" or "thalamotomy" or "pallidotomy." The search strategy was not limited by study design but only included key words in the English language, so at least the abstract had to be in English. RESULTS: A total of 34 full-text articles were included in the analysis. Three studies were prospective studies, 1 was a retrospective comparative study, and the remaining 30 were retrospective studies. The one retrospective comparative study evaluating deep brain stimulation (DBS), radiofrequency thermocoagulation (RFT), and SRS reported similar tremor control rates, more permanent complications after DBS and RFT, more recurrence after RFT, and a longer latency period to clinical response with SRS. Similar tremor reduction rates in most of the reports were observed with SRS thalamotomy (mean 88%). Clinical complications were rare and usually not permanent (range 0%-100%, mean 17%, median 2%). Follow-up in general was too short to confirm long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: SRS to the unilateral thalamic ventral intermediate nucleus, with a dose of 130-150 Gy, is a well-tolerated and effective treatment for reducing medically refractory tremor, and one that is recommended by the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery 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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".