MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940663836 · doi:10.2147/ndt.s139368

<p>Deep brain stimulation in Tourette’s syndrome: evidence to date</p>

2019· review· en· W2940663836 on OpenAlexaff
Sara CB Casagrande, Rubens Gisbert Cury, Eduardo JL Alho, Erich Talamoni Fonoff

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourette syndromeDeep brain stimulationTicsMedicineRandomized controlled trialClinical trialRefractory (planetary science)Globus pallidusPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsNeurosciencePsychiatryInternal medicineBasal gangliaPsychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations49
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychiatric Disease and TreatmentSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207