Clinical perspectives of adaptive deep brain stimulation
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
BACKGROUND: The application of stimulators implanted directly over deep brain structures (i.e., deep brain stimulation, DBS) was developed in the late 1980s and has since become a mainstream option to treat several neurological conditions. Conventional DBS involves the continuous stimulation of the target structure, which is an approach that cannot adapt to patients' changing symptoms or functional status in real-time. At the beginning of 2000, a more sophisticated form of stimulation was conceived to overcome these limitations. Adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) employs on-demand, contingency-based stimulation to stimulate only when needed. So far, aDBS has been tested in several pathological conditions in animal and human models. OBJECTIVE: To review the current findings obtained from application of aDBS to animal and human models that highlights effects on motor, cognitive and psychiatric behaviors. FINDINGS: while aDBS has shown promising results in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and essential tremor, the possibility of its use in less common DBS indications, such as cognitive and psychiatric disorders (Alzheimer's disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder) is still challenging. CONCLUSIONS: While aDBS seems to be effective to treat movement disorders (Parkinson's disease and essential tremor), its role in cognitive and psychiatric disorders is to be determined, although neurophysiological assumptions are promising.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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