Unilateral pallidotomy in the treatment of cervical dystonia: a retrospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of unilateral pallidotomy in patients with asymmetrical cervical dystonia. METHODS: This study retrospectively included 25 consecutive patients with asymmetrical cervical dystonia refractory to botulinum toxin injections, who underwent unilateral pallidotomy between January 2015 and April 2017. Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) scores were evaluated preoperatively and 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. The clinical responses were defined as good responders, exhibiting > 50% improvement in the TWSTRS score at 6 months postsurgery, or poor responders, exhibiting < 50% improvement in TWSTRS scores at 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: Twelve and 9 patients showed right- and left-side rotation, respectively; 1 and 3 patients had right- and left-side laterocollis, respectively. The mean age of onset and duration of the disease were 40.2 ± 13.9 and 8.9 ± 10.9 years, respectively. Mean TWSTRS scores were 38.4 ± 12.6 (p < 0.001), 17.3 ± 12.4 (p < 0.001), 19.5 ± 13.4 (p < 0.001), and 20.0 ± 14.7 (p < 0.001), preoperatively and 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively, respectively. Fourteen patients (56%) demonstrated > 50% improvement in their TWSTRS total score (mean improvement of TWSTRS total score = 70.5%) 6 months postsurgically. Furthermore, preoperative TWSTRS severity score was a prognostic factor (odds ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.78, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that unilateral pallidotomy is an acceptable treatment option for asymmetrical cervical dystonia. Further investigations with a larger number of cases and longer follow-up period are required to confirm these data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".