MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033544601 · doi:10.5334/tohm.69

The Effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation in Dystonia: A Patient-Centered Approach

2020· article· en· W3033544601 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hendriekje Eggink, Rivka F. Toonen, Jonathan C. van Zijl, Martje E. van Egmond, Anna L. Bartels, Maria Fiorella Contarino, Rick Brandsma, Kathryn J. Peall, J. Marc C. van Dijk, D. L. Marinus Oterdoom, Martijn Beudel, Marina A.J. Tijssen

Bibliographic record

VenueTremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsDystoniaDeep brain stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRating scalePhysical therapyMedicinePsychologyNeuroscienceInternal medicineParkinson's diseaseDevelopmental psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus internus (GPi-DBS) in dystonia on pre-operatively set functional priorities in daily living. Methods: Fifteen pediatric and adult dystonia patients (8 male; median age 32y, range 8-65) receiving GPi-DBS were recruited. All patients underwent a multidisciplinary evaluation before and 1-year post DBS implantation. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) first identified and then measured changes in functional priorities. The Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS) was used to evaluate dystonia severity. Results: Priorities in daily functioning substantially varied between patients but showed significant improvements on performance and satisfaction after DBS. Clinically significant COPM-score improvements were present in 7/8 motor responders, but also in 4/7 motor non-responders. Discussion: The use of a patient-oriented approach to measure GPi-DBS effectiveness in dystonia provides an unique insight in patients' priorities and demonstrates that tangible improvements can be achieved irrespective of motor response. Highlights: Functional priorities in life of dystonia patients and their caregivers vary greatlyThe effect of DBS on functional priorities did not correlate with motor outcomeHalf of the motor 'non-responder' patients reported important changes in their prioritiesThe effect of DBS in dystonia should not be measured by motor outcome alone.

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 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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTremor and Other Hyperkinetic MovementsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207