MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967277042 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-320858

Effects of bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson's disease with and without REM sleep behaviour disorder

2019· article· en· W2967277042 on OpenAlexaff
Panagiotis Bargiotas, Ines Debove, Ioannis Bargiotas, M. Lenard Lachenmayer, Maria Ntafouli, Nicolas Vayatis, Michaël Schüpbach, Paul Krack, Claudio L. Bassetti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersLundbeckfonden
KeywordsApathyParkinson's diseaseDeep brain stimulationEpworth Sleepiness ScaleRating scaleDepression (economics)Subthalamic nucleusInternal medicinePolysomnographyRapid eye movement sleepPsychologyMedicineBeck Depression InventoryDiseasePhysical therapyPsychiatryAnxietyEye movementNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) in Parkinson's disease (PD) is associated with increased non-motor symptoms, its impact on the deep brain stimulation (DBS) outcome remains unclear. This is the first study to compare the post-DBS outcome between PD patients with RBD (PD-RBD+) and without (PD-RBD-). METHODS: We analysed data from PD patients who were treated with bilateral DBS in the nucleus subthalamicus. Assessments included night-polysomnography (only pre-DBS), and motor and non-motor assessments pre-DBS and post-DBS. RESULTS: Among 50 PD patients (29 males, mean age 62.5 years, 11.8 mean PD years), 24 (48%) had RBD. Pre-DBS, the two groups were equal in respect to sociodemographic features, disease duration and PD medications. A multivariate analysis showed that the clinical profile linked to motor, non-motor and quality of life features differed significantly between PD patients with and without RBD. The most discriminative elements were Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III, apathy and depression scores. Post-DBS, UPDRS-III, Epworth sleepiness scale and PD questionnaire improved significantly in both groups. UPDRS-II scores significantly improved in the PD-RBD+ group (-45%) but remained unchanged in the PD-RBD- group (-14%). The depression score improved significantly in the PD-RBD+ (-34%) and remained unchanged in the PD-RBD- group. The apathy score remained unchanged in the PD-RBD+ group but increased significantly in the PD-RBD- group (+33%). CONCLUSION: While pre-DBS, PD patients with and without RBD showed different clinical profiles, post-DBS, the clinical profiles were comparable between the two groups. In respect to depressive symptoms, apathy and activities of daily living, PD-RBD+ patients show favourable post-DBS outcome. These findings highlight the importance of RBD assessment prior to DBS surgery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207