Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy Sensory Side Effects Follow the Thalamic Structural Homunculus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Focused ultrasound thalamotomy is an effective treatment for tremor; however, side effects may occur. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the spatial relationship between thalamotomies and specific sensory side effects and their functional connectivity with somatosensory cortex and relationship to the medial lemniscus (ML). METHODS: Sensory adverse effects were categorized into 4 groups based on the location of the disturbance: face/mouth/tongue numbness/paresthesia, hand-only paresthesia, hemibody/limb paresthesia, and dysgeusia. Then, areas of significant risk (ASRs) for each category were defined using voxel-wise mass univariate analysis and overlaid on corresponding odds ratio maps. The ASR associated with the maximum risk was used as a region of interest in a normative functional connectome to determine side effect-specific functional connectivity. Finally, each ASR was overlaid on the ML derived from normative template. RESULTS: Of 103 patients, 17 developed sensory side effects after thalamotomy persisting 3 months after the procedures. Lesions producing sensory side effects extended posteriorly into the principle sensory nucleus of the thalamus or below the thalamus in the ML. The topography of sensory adverse effects followed the known somatotopy of the ML and the sensory nucleus. Functional connectivity patterns between each sensory-specific thalamic seed and the primary somatosensory areas supported the role of the middle insula in processing of gustatory information and in multisensory integration. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct regions in the sensory thalamus and its afferent connections rise to specific sensory disturbances. These findings demonstrate the relationship between the sensory thalamus, ML, and bilateral sensory cortical areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".