<p>Deep brain stimulation in Tourette&rsquo;s syndrome: evidence to date</p>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourette's syndrome (TS) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that comprises vocal and motor tics associated with a high frequency of psychiatric comorbidities, which has an important impact on quality of life. The onset is mainly in childhood and the symptoms can either fade away or require pharmacological therapies associated with cognitive-behavior therapies. In rare cases, patients experience severe and disabling symptoms refractory to conventional treatments. In these cases, deep brain stimulation (DBS) can be considered as an interesting and effective option for symptomatic control. DBS has been studied in numerous trials as a therapy for movement disorders, and currently positive data supports that DBS is partially effective in reducing the motor and non-motor symptoms of TS. The average response, mostly from case series and prospective cohorts and only a few controlled studies, is around 40% improvement on tic severity scales. The ventromedial thalamus has been the preferred target, but more recently the globus pallidus internus has also gained some notoriety. The mechanism by which DBS is effective on tics and other symptoms in TS is not yet understood. As refractory TS is not common, even reference centers have difficulties in performing large controlled trials. However, studies that reproduce the current results in larger and multicenter randomized controlled trials to improve our knowledge so as to support the best target and stimulation settings are still lacking. This article will discuss the selection of the candidates, DBS targets and mechanisms on TS, and clinical evidence to date reviewing current literature about the use of DBS in the treatment of TS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it