DBS-Edmonton App, a Tool to Manage Patient Expectations of DBS in Parkinson Disease
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: After deep brain stimulation (DBS) for Parkinson disease (PD), patients often do not report the level of satisfaction anticipated. This misalignment can relate to patients' expectations for an invasive treatment and insufficient knowledge of DBS's effectiveness in relieving motor and nonmotor symptoms (NMS). Patient satisfaction depends on expectations and goals for treatment. We hypothesized that improving patient education with a patient-centered shared decision-making tool emphasizing autonomy would improve patient satisfaction and clinical outcome. METHODS: We developed a computer application (DBS-Edmonton app), allowing patients with PD to input their symptoms and to learn how effective DBS addresses their prioritized symptoms. Sixty-two volunteers referred for DBS used the DBS-Edmonton app. DBS-related knowledge and patient perceptions of the DBS-Edmonton app were assessed with pre- and post-use questionnaires. Fourteen of 24 patients who proceeded to DBS achieved optimization at 6 months. Perceived functional improvement was assessed and compared with 12 control patients with DBS who did not use the DBS-Edmonton app. RESULTS: = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This interventional study showed that the DBS-Edmonton app improved DBS-related knowledge and patient satisfaction, independent of the objective motor outcome. It may assist patients in deciding to proceed to DBS and can be easily incorporated into practice to improve patient satisfaction post-DBS.
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 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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it