Programming Directional Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease: A Randomized Prospective Trial Comparing Early versus Delayed Stimulation Steering
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
INTRODUCTION: Programming directional leads poses new challenges as the optimal strategy is yet to be established. We designed a randomized control study to establish an evidence-based programming algorithm for patients with Parkinson's disease undergoing subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation with directional leads. METHODS: Fourteen consecutive patients were randomized to programming with either early or delayed (i.e., starting with a "ring mode") steered stimulation. Motor scores, number of programming visits, calls to the clinic, battery consumption, and stimulation adjustments required were recorded and compared between groups, using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, after 3 months of open-label programming. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (25 electrodes) were included, of which 23 were steerable. Nine out of 14 electrodes allocated to delayed steered stimulation were changed to steered mode due to side effects during the course of the study. No patients (11 electrodes) initially allocated to early steered stimulation were converted to ring mode. The 2 study arms did not differ in any of the considered measures at 3 months. CONCLUSION: Programming with early or delayed steered stimulation is equally effective in the short term. However, delayed steering is less time consuming and is not always needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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