MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899566368 · doi:10.1002/acn3.682

Deep brain stimulation: potential for neuroprotection

2018· review· en· W2899566368 on OpenAlexaff
Chris McKinnon, Priti Gros, Darrin J. Lee, Clement Hamani, Andrés M. Lozano, Lorraine V. Kalia, Suneil K. Kalia

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Western HospitalOccupational Cancer Research CentreHealth Sciences Centre
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedicineDystoniaNeuroprotectionNeuroscienceDiseaseEssential tremorParkinson's diseaseEpilepsyDepression (economics)Movement disordersPsychiatryPsychologyPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last two decades there has been an exponential rise in the number of patients receiving deep brain stimulation (DBS) to manage debilitating neurological symptoms in conditions such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia. Novel applications of DBS continue to emerge including treatment of various psychiatric conditions (e.g. obsessive-compulsive disorder, major depression) and cognitive disorders such as Alzheimer's disease. Despite widening therapeutic applications, our understanding of the mechanisms underlying DBS remains limited. In addition to modulation of local and network-wide neuronal activity, growing evidence suggests that DBS may also have important neuroprotective effects in the brain by limiting synaptic dysfunction and neuronal loss in neurodegenerative disorders. In this review, we consider evidence from preclinical and clinical studies of DBS in Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and epilepsy that suggest chronic stimulation has the potential to mitigate neuronal loss and disease progression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations91
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Clinical and Translational NeurologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207