MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903914030 · doi:10.3233/jpd-181467

The Future of Surgical Treatments for Parkinson’s Disease

2018· review· en· W2903914030 on OpenAlexaff
Darrin J. Lee, Andrés M. Lozano

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Parkinson s Disease · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseDeep brain stimulationMedicineDiseaseNeuroscienceTransplantationIntensive care medicineSurgeryPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surgical treatment of Parkinson's disease has made significant progress over the past 70 years; however, its scope of effectiveness remains limited to motor symptoms like bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor and medication-induced dyskinesias. The field of surgery initially developed from lesioning procedures and then transitioned largely to deep brain stimulation due to its properties of adaptability and reversibility. Interestingly, there has been a renewed interest in lesioning procedures secondary to the introduction of focused ultrasound, a non-invasive technology. Despite the various current therapies' effectiveness, there is a significant need for developing treatments to modify the disease process itself. To date, gene therapy, immunotherapy, and cell transplantation trials have had both promising and disappointing results. Newer techniques being developed (optogenetics, magnetogenetics, and sonogenetics) are exciting possibilities for the future. Here, we examine and speculate on novel potential surgical treatments for Parkinson's disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Parkinson s DiseaseSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207