MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948628343 · doi:10.1155/2019/1947962

Psychiatric and Behavioral Complications of GPi DBS in an Adolescent with Myoclonus Dystonia

2019· article· en· W2948628343 on OpenAlexaff
Graciela Kriegel, Melanie I. Stuckey

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedicineDystoniaDepression (economics)PsychiatryAnxietyTourette syndromeMyoclonusPediatricsInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myoclonus dystonia is a rare movement disorder that often causes significant disability. Deep brain stimulation of the internal pallidum (GPi DBS) is a recommended treatment for those who do not respond to pharmacotherapy or who have intolerable side effects. This paper reports on the case of a 17-year-old male who was admitted to a tertiary level mental healthcare facility for treatment of psychiatric and behavioral symptoms thought to be related to GPi DBS. Prior to GPi DBS insertion, the patient was diagnosed with anxiety and mild obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Following insertion, his OCD became severe and he developed depression, Tourette syndrome, and stuttering. His first admission to a psychiatric unit was for management of a manic episode following treatment for depression with fluoxetine, and he began to exhibit severe aggressive behavior. GPi DBS was turned off, but there were neither changes in dystonic movements nor improvement in aggressive behavior or psychiatric symptoms, though stuttering improved. The patient was transferred to a secure treatment centre where he was able to gain control over his behaviors with intense dialectical behavior therapy, but the aggressive behavior and safety concerns continue to persist today.

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 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in PsychiatrySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207