Comparing Programming Sessions of Vim-DBS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backround: Essential Tremor (ET) is a progressive neurological disorder characterized by postural and kinetic tremor most commonly affecting the hands and arms. Medically intractable ET can be treated by deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral intermediate nucleus of thalamus (VIM). We investigated whether the location of the effective contact (most tremor suppression with at least side effects) in VIM-DBS for ET changes over time, indicating a distinct mechanism of loss of efficacy that goes beyond progression of tremor severity, or a mere reduction of DBS efficacy. Methods: We performed programming sessions in 10 patients who underwent bilateral vim-DBS surgery between 2009 and 2017 at our department. In addition to the intraoperative (T1) and first clinical programming session (T2) a third programming session (T3) was performed to assess the effect- and side effect threshold (minimum voltage at which a tremor suppression or side effects occurred). Additionally, we compared the choice of the effective contact between T1 and T2 which might be affected by a surgical induced “brain shift”. Discussion: Over a time span of about 4 years VIM-DBS in ET showed continuous efficacy in tremor suppression during stim-ON compared to stim-OFF. Compared to immediate postoperative programming sessions in ET-patients with DBS, long-term evaluation showed no relevant change in the choice of contact with respect to side effects and efficacy. In the majority of the cases the active contact at T2 did not correspond to the most effective intraoperative stimulation site T1, which might be explained by a brain-shift due to cerebral spinal fluid loss after neurosurgical procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".