MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981169318 · doi:10.1159/000503364

Coughing as a Side Effect of Deep Brain Stimulation due to Peripheral Stimulation of the Vagus Nerve: Case Report

2019· article· en· W2981169318 on OpenAlexaff
Marie T. Krüger, Thomas J. Hirmer, Christopher R. Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVagus nerveMedicineStimulationDeep brain stimulationVagus nerve stimulationAnesthesiaPeripheralSubthalamic nucleusBreathingSurgeryParkinson's diseaseInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors describe how severe coughing and breathing issues were caused by a deep brain stimulation (DBS) system due to current induction in the adjacent vagus nerve. A 57-year-old man with Parkinson's disease (PD) who received bilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS presented with coughing and breathing difficulty when his DBS system was activated. The intensity of coughing was directly related to the amount of stimulation. When the DBS system was turned off, his cough resolved immediately. A system check revealed no radiographic abnormalities and all electrode impedances were within the normal range. We hypothesize that the coughing was caused by an induced electromagnetic stimulation of the vagus nerve from the extensions, which were running in close proximity to the nerve in the neck. Since the patient could not tolerate the coughing at stimulation settings required to ameliorate his PD symptoms, we ultimately exchanged the extensions and moved them further away from the vagus nerve. This resulted in immediate, complete, and continuous relief of the patient's symptoms.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStereotactic and Functional NeurosurgerySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207