MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3126607677 · doi:10.1093/neuros/nyaa596

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Deep Brain Stimulations for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Update of the 2014 Guidelines

2021· review· en· W3126607677 on OpenAlexaff
Michael D. Staudt, Nader Pouratian, J. Philip Miller, Clement Hamani, Nataly Raviv, Guy M. McKhann, Jorge González-Martínez, Julie G. Pilitsis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNevroNational Institutes of HealthCongress of Neurological Surgeons
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewDeep brain stimulationGuidelineMEDLINEEvidence-based medicineCritical appraisalBody dysmorphic disorderPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2020, the Guidelines Task Force conducted another systematic review of the relevant literature on deep brain stimulation (DBS) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) to update the original 2014 guidelines to ensure timeliness and accuracy for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature and update the evidence-based guidelines on DBS for OCD. METHODS: The Guidelines Task Force conducted another systematic review of the relevant literature, using the same search terms and strategies as used to search PubMed and Embase for relevant literature. The updated search included studies published between 1966 and December 2019. The same inclusion/exclusion criteria as the original guideline were also applied. Abstracts were reviewed and relevant full-text articles were retrieved and graded. Of 864 articles, 10 were retrieved for full-text review and analysis. Recommendations were updated according to new evidence yielded by this update. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the original guideline, reporting the use of bilateral DBS as more effective in improving OCD symptoms than sham treatment. An additional 10 studies were included in this update: 1 class II and 9 class III. CONCLUSION: Based on the data published in the literature, the following recommendations can be made: (1) It is recommended that clinicians utilize bilateral subthalamic nucleus DBS over best medical management for the treatment of patients with medically refractory OCD (level I). (2) Clinicians may use bilateral nucleus accumbens or bed nucleus of stria terminalis DBS for the treatment of patients with medically refractory OCD (level II). There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for the identification of the most effective target.The full guidelines can be accessed at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/browse-guidelines-detail/deep-brain-stimulation-obsessive-compulsive-disord.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0370.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgery→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→