MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800288240 · doi:10.1038/s41380-018-0054-0

Evolution of gamma knife capsulotomy for intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder

2018· review· en· W2800288240 on OpenAlexaff
Eurı́pedes Constantino Miguel, Antônio Carlos Lopes, Nicole McLaughlin, Georg Norén, André Felix Gentil, Clement Hamani, Roseli Gedanke Shavitt, Marcelo C. Batistuzzo, Edoardo Filippo de Queiroz Vattimo, Miguel Montes Canteras, Antônio De Salles, Alessandra Gorgulho, João Víctor Salvajoli, Erich Talamoni Fonoff, Ian Paddick, Marcelo Q. Hoexter, Christer Lindquist, Suzanne N. Haber, Benjamin D. Greenberg, Sameer A. Sheth

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Psychiatry · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNational Institute of Mental HealthFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsAdverse effectCapsulotomyMedicineInternal capsulePsychosurgeryNeuropsychologyNeurosciencePsychologySurgeryPsychiatryMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyInternal medicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than half a century, stereotactic neurosurgical procedures have been available to treat patients with severe, debilitating symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) that have proven refractory to extensive, appropriate pharmacological, and psychological treatment. Although reliable predictors of outcome remain elusive, the establishment of narrower selection criteria for neurosurgical candidacy, together with a better understanding of the functional neuroanatomy implicated in OCD, has resulted in improved clinical efficacy for an array of ablative and non-ablative intervention techniques targeting the cingulum, internal capsule, and other limbic regions. It was against this backdrop that gamma knife capsulotomy (GKC) for OCD was developed. In this paper, we review the history of this stereotactic radiosurgical procedure, from its inception to recent advances. We perform a systematic review of the existing literature and also provide a narrative account of the evolution of the procedure, detailing how the procedure has changed over time, and has been shaped by forces of evidence and innovation. As the procedure has evolved and adverse events have decreased considerably, favorable response rates have remained attainable for approximately one-half to two-thirds of individuals treated at experienced centers. A reduction in obsessive-compulsive symptom severity may result not only from direct modulation of OCD neural pathways but also from enhanced efficacy of pharmacological and psychological therapies working in a synergistic fashion with GKC. Possible complications include frontal lobe edema and even the rare formation of delayed radionecrotic cysts. These adverse events have become much less common with new radiation dose and targeting strategies. Detailed neuropsychological assessments from recent studies suggest that cognitive function is not impaired, and in some domains may even improve following treatment. We conclude this review with discussions covering topics essential for further progress of this therapy, including suggestions for future trial design given the unique features of GKC therapy, considerations for optimizing stereotactic targeting and dose planning using biophysical models, and the use of advanced imaging techniques to understand circuitry and predict response. GKC, and in particular its modern variant, gamma ventral capsulotomy, continues to be a reliable treatment option for selected cases of otherwise highly refractory OCD.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations123
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PsychiatrySame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207