Factors Influencing the Surgical Decision in Dystonia Patients Referred for Deep Brain Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no available data on the journey of dystonia patients once referred to a tertiary center to undergo deep brain stimulation (DBS). We hypothesized that some patients might be incorrectly diagnosed while others might decline the procedure or experience significant benefit with switching to a different botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT). This is a single-center, retrospective study of dystonia patients who were referred to the DBS program between January 2014 and December 2018. We collected data on the surgical decision as well as factors influencing this decision. Sixty-seven patients were included (30 males, mean age: 48.3 ± 20.1 years, disease duration: 16.9 ± 15.3 years). Thirty-three (49%) patients underwent DBS. Four (6%) patients were awaiting the procedure while the remaining 30 patients (45%) did not undergo DBS. Reasons for DBS decline were patient refusal (17, 53%), functional dystonia (6, 20%), and successful use of AbobotulinumtoxinA (3, 10%) in patients who had failed other BoNTs. Our study highlights the importance of structured patient education to increase acceptance of DBS, as well as careful patient evaluation, particularly with respect to functional dystonia. Finally, changing BoNT formulation might be beneficial in some patients.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".