Quality of Life After Motor Cortex Stimulation: Clinical Results and Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is routinely used for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain but its effect on quality of life remains uncertain. OBEJCTIVE: To systematically review the published literature on MCS and quality of life and report the effects of this therapy in a series of patients prospectively followed in our center. METHODS: The systematic literature review was conducted using the search words "motor cortex stimulation and pain and neurosurgery" and "motor cortex stimulation and pain and quality of life." Quality of life in our clinical trial was investigated in a series of 10 patients with chronic neuropathic pain prospectively followed for 12 mo after MCS. RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen nonreplicated articles were pooled for analysis. Of these, 6 described measures of quality of life in the pre- and postoperative period. In these studies, 64 patients with different clinical conditions associated with neuropathic pain were followed for 6 to 84 mo after MCS surgery. Improvement in quality of life ranged from 35% to 85%. In our clinical series, visual analog scale (VAS), SF-12 physical (PhysCS), and mental scores (MenCS) recorded 12 mo after MCS were improved by 60 ± 10% (P = .002), 50 ± 13% (P = .002), and 22 ± 6% (P = .01), respectively. No significant correlation was found between postoperative improvement in pain and either PhysCS (r = 0.18; P = .6) or MenCS (r = -0.24; P = .5). CONCLUSION: MCS improves quality of life in patients with chronic refractory neuropathic pain. Additional factors other than a simple analgesic effect may contribute to these results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".