MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967241608 · doi:10.3171/2019.4.jns181761

Current and future directions of deep brain stimulation for neurological and psychiatric disorders

2019· review· en· W2967241608 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

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedicineEssential tremorMovement disordersDystoniaEpilepsyQuality of life (healthcare)NeuroscienceDiseasePsychiatryParkinson's diseasePathologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has evolved considerably over the past 4 decades. Although it has primarily been used to treat movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, recently it has been approved to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder and epilepsy. Novel potential indications in both neurological and psychiatric disorders are undergoing active study. There have been significant advances in DBS technology, including preoperative and intraoperative imaging, surgical approaches and techniques, and device improvements. In addition to providing significant clinical benefits and improving quality of life, DBS has also increased the understanding of human electrophysiology and network interactions. Despite the value of DBS, future developments should be aimed at developing less invasive techniques and attaining not just symptom improvement but curative disease modification.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.302 · 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