MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921116799 · doi:10.15252/emmm.201809575

Cellular, molecular, and clinical mechanisms of action of deep brain stimulation—a systematic review on established indications and outlook on future developments

2019· review· en· W2921116799 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

VenueEMBO Molecular Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationNeuromodulationNeuroscienceNeurochemicalSubthalamic nucleusMedicineParkinson's diseaseDiseaseStimulationPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been successfully used to treat movement disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, for more than 25 years and heralded the advent of electrical neuromodulation to treat diseases with dysregulated neuronal circuits. DBS is now superseding ablative techniques, such as stereotactic radiofrequency lesions. While serendipity has played a role in developing DBS as a therapy, research during the past two decades has shown that electrical neuromodulation is far more than a functional lesion that can be switched on and off. This understanding broadens the field to enable new types of stimulation, clinical indications, and research. This review highlights the complex effects of DBS from the single cell to the neuronal network. Specifically, we examine the electrical, cellular, molecular, and neurochemical mechanisms of DBS as applied to Parkinson's disease and other emerging applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.324 · 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