Tremor habituation to deep brain stimulation: Underlying mechanisms and solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DBS of the ventral intermediate nucleus is an extremely effective treatment for essential tremor, although a waning benefit is observed after a variable time in a variable proportion of patients (ranging from 0% to 73%), a concept historically defined as "tolerance." Tolerance is currently an established concept in the medical community, although there is debate on its real existence. In fact, very few publications have actually addressed the problem, thus making tolerance a typical example of science based on "eminence rather than evidence." The underpinnings of the phenomena associated with the progressive loss of DBS benefit are not fully elucidated, although the interplay of different-not mutually exclusive-factors has been advocated. In this viewpoint, we gathered the evidence explaining the progressive loss of benefit observed after DBS. We grouped these factors in three categories: disease-related factors (tremor etiology and progression); surgery-related factors (electrode location, microlesional effect and placebo); and stimulation-related factors (not optimized stimulation, stimulation-induced side effects, habituation, and tremor rebound). We also propose possible pathophysiological explanations for the phenomenon and define a nomenclature of the associated features: early versus late DBS failure; tremor rebound versus habituation (to be preferred over tolerance). Finally, we provide a practical approach for preventing and treating this loss of DBS benefit, and we draft a possible roadmap for the research to come. © 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".