MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910282757 · doi:10.1159/000495413

Unilateral Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Voice Tremor

2018· article· en· W2910282757 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationStimulationEssential tremorMedicineThalamic stimulatorSubthalamic nucleusThalamusPhonationAudiologyPsychologyAnesthesiaParkinson's diseaseNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Voice tremor (VT) is the involuntary and rhythmical phonatory instability of the voice. Recent findings suggest that unilateral deep brain stimulation of the ventral intermediate nucleus (Vim-DBS) can sometimes be effective for VT. In this exploratory analysis, we investigated the effect of Vim-DBS on VT and tested the hypothesis that unilateral thalamic stimulation is effective for patients with VT. METHODS: Seven patients with VT and previously implanted bilateral Vim-DBS were enrolled in the study. Each patient was randomized and recorded performing sustained phonation during the following conditions: left thalamic stimulation, right thalamic stimulation, bilateral thalamic stimulation (Bil-ON), and no stimulation (Bil-OFF). Perceptual VT ratings and an acoustic analysis to find the rate of variation of the fundamental frequency measured by the standard deviation of the pitch (f0SD) were performed in a blinded manner. For the purposes of this study, a "dominant" side was defined as one with more than twice as much reduction in VT following Vim-DBS compared to the contralateral side. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the effect of the dominant side stimulation in the reduction of VT scores and f0SD. The volume of activated tissue (VAT) of the dominant stimulation side was modelled against the degree of improvement in VT to correlate the significant stimulation cluster with thalamic anatomy. Finally, tractography analysis was performed to analyze the connectivity of the significant stimulation cluster. RESULTS: Unilateral stimulation was beneficial in all 7 patients. Five patients clearly had a "dominant" side with either benefit only seen following stimulation of one side or more than twice as much benefit from one side compared to the other. Two patients had similar benefit with unilateral stimulation from either side. The Wilcoxon paired test showed significant differences between unilateral dominant and unilateral nondominant stimulation for VT scores (p = 0.04), between unilateral dominant and Bil-OFF (p = 0.04), and between Bil-ON and unilateral nondominant stimulation (p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between Bil-ON and unilateral dominant condition (p = 0.27), or between Bil-OFF and unilateral nondominant (p = 0.23). The dominant VAT showed that the significant voxels associated with the best VT control were located in the most ventral and medial part of the Vim nucleus and the ventralis caudalis anterior internus nucleus. The connectivity analysis showed significant connectivity with the cortical areas of the speech circuit. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral dominant-side thalamic stimulation and bilateral thalamic stimulation were equally effective in reducing VT. Nondominant unilateral stimulation alone did not significantly improve VT.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.244 · 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