MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138575188 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcab027

Sign-specific stimulation ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots in Parkinson’s disease validated with machine learning

2021· article· en· W3138575188 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusDeep brain stimulationStimulationParkinson's diseaseNeuroscienceBrain stimulationBasal gangliaMovement disordersPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineDiseasePathologyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus has become a standard therapy for Parkinson’s disease. Despite extensive experience, however, the precise target of optimal stimulation and the relationship between site of stimulation and alleviation of individual signs remains unclear. We examined whether machine learning could predict the benefits in specific Parkinsonian signs when informed by precise locations of stimulation. We studied 275 Parkinson’s disease patients who underwent subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation between 2003 and 2018. We selected pre-deep brain stimulation and best available post-deep brain stimulation scores from motor items of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III) to discern sign-specific changes attributable to deep brain stimulation. Volumes of tissue activated were computed and weighted by (i) tremor, (ii) rigidity, (iii) bradykinesia and (iv) axial signs changes. Then, sign-specific sites of optimal (‘hot spots’) and suboptimal efficacy (‘cold spots’) were defined. These areas were subsequently validated using machine learning prediction of sign-specific outcomes with in-sample and out-of-sample data (n = 51 subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation patients from another institution). Tremor and rigidity hot spots were largely located outside and dorsolateral to the subthalamic nucleus whereas hot spots for bradykinesia and axial signs had larger overlap with the subthalamic nucleus. Using volume of tissue activated overlap with sign-specific hot and cold spots, support vector machine classified patients into quartiles of efficacy with ≥92% accuracy. The accuracy remained high (68–98%) when only considering volume of tissue activated overlap with hot spots but was markedly lower (41–72%) when only using cold spots. The model also performed poorly (44–48%) when using only stimulation voltage, irrespective of stimulation location. Out-of-sample validation accuracy was ≥96% when using volume of tissue activated overlap with the sign-specific hot and cold spots. In two independent datasets, distinct brain areas could predict sign-specific clinical changes in Parkinson’s disease patients with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation. With future prospective validation, these findings could individualize stimulation delivery to optimize quality of life improvement.

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 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.249 · 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