MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033031404 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2020.06.004

Long-term update of the effect of spinal cord stimulation in advanced Parkinson’s disease patients

2020· letter· en· W3033031404 on OpenAlex
Olivia Samotus, Andrew G. Parrent, Mandar Jog

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research Institute
FundersAllerganMerz PharmaceuticalsAbbVie CanadaBoston Scientific CorporationIpsenNovartisTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesAbbVieMedtronic
KeywordsMedicineParkinson's diseaseGaitDeep brain stimulationSpinal cord stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordCohortDopaminergicDiseasePhysical therapyInternal medicineDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally-invasive procedure that has shown variable outcomes for dopaminergic-resistant gait impairments in small cohorts of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients [1]. Our pilot study reported mid-thoracic, epidural SCS significantly improved stride velocity and reduced the number of freezing of gait (FOG) episodes during self-paced straight walking in advanced PD patients after 6 months [2]. However, long-term gait effects (>6 months) of SCS are unclear. This article reports the effect of SCS following 3-years of SCS in our pilot study’s cohort of PD patients [2].

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.275 · 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