Extradural Motor Cortex Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease: Long-Term Clinical Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous investigations have reported on the motor benefits and safety of chronic extradural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), but studies addressing the long-term clinical outcome are still lacking. In this study, nine consecutive PD patients who underwent EMCS were prospectively recruited, with a mean follow-up time of 5.1 ± 2.5 years. As compared to the preoperatory baseline, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-III in the off-medication condition significantly decreased by 13.8% at 12 months, 16.1% at 18 months, 18.4% at 24 months, 21% at 36 months, 15.6% at 60 months, and 8.6% at 72 months. The UPDRS-IV decreased by 30.8% at 12 months, 22.1% at 24 months, 25% at 60 months, and 36.5% at 72 months. Dopaminergic therapy showed a progressive reduction, significant at 60 months (11.8%). Quality of life improved by 18.0% at 12 months, and 22.4% at 60 months. No surgical complication, cognitive or behavioral change occurred. The only adverse event reported was an infection of the implantable pulse generator pocket. Even in the long-term follow-up, EMCS was shown to be a safe and effective treatment option in PD patients, resulting in improvements in motor symptoms and quality of life, and reductions in motor complications and dopaminergic therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".