MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999426664 · doi:10.1159/000505080

Clinical Perspectives on Psychiatric Neurosurgery

2019· article· en· W2999426664 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

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryNeuroDevNetUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosurgeryMedicineRadiosurgeryDeep brain stimulationPsychological interventionPsychiatryDepression (economics)PsychologyInternal medicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Surgical interventions such as stereotactic radiosurgery and magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound, and neuromodulatory interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and vagal nerve stimulation, are under investigation to remediate psychiatric conditions resistant to conventional therapies involving drugs and psychological supports. OBJECTIVE: Given the complicated history of psychiatric neurosurgery and its renaissance today, we sought to examine current perceptions and predictions about the field among practicing functional neurosurgeons. METHODS: We designed a 51-question online survey comprising Likert-type, multiple-choice, and rank-order questions and distributed it to members of the American Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery (ASSFN). Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed on the data. RESULTS: We received 38 completed surveys. Half (n = 19) of responders reported devoting at least a portion of their clinical practice to psychiatric neurosurgery, utilizing DBS and treating obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) most frequently overall. Respondents indicated that psychiatric neurosurgery is more medically effective (OR 0, p = 0.03242, two-sided Fisher's exact test) and has clearer clinical indications for the treatment of OCD than for the treatment of depression (OR 0.09775, p = 0.005137, two-sided Fisher's exact test). Seventy-one percent of all respondents (n = 27) supported the clinical utility of ablative surgery in modern neuropsychiatric practice, 87% (n = 33) agreed that ablative procedures constitute a valid treatment alternative to DBS for some patients, and 61% (n = 23) agreed that ablative surgery may be an acceptable treatment option for patients who are unlikely to comply with postoperative care. CONCLUSIONS: This up-to-date account of practices, perceptions, and predictions about psychiatric neurosurgery contributes to the knowledge about evolving attitudes over time and informs priorities for education and further surgical innovation on the psychiatric neurosurgery landscape.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · 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