MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200455315 · doi:10.1002/mds.28898

Quality of Life After Deep Brain Stimulation of Pediatric Patients with Dyskinetic Cerebral Palsy: A Prospective, Single‐Arm, Multicenter Study with a Subsequent Randomized Double‐Blind Crossover ( <scp>STIM‐CP</scp> )

2021· article· en· W4200455315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Koy, Andrea A. Kühn, Julius Huebl, Gerd‐Helge Schneider, Anne K. van Riesen, Matthias Eckenweiler, Cornelia Rensing‐Zimmermann, Volker A. Coenen, Joachim K. Krauss, Assel Saryyeva, Hans Hartmann, Martin Haeussler, Jens Volkmann, Cordula Matthies, Annette Horn, Alfons Schnitzler, Jan Vesper, Alireza Gharabaghi, Daniel Weiß, Andrea Bevot, Warren A. Marks, Angela Pomykal, Elegast Monbaliu, Guntram Borck, Joerg Mueller, Reinhild Prinz‐Langenohl, Till A. Dembek, Veerle Visser‐Vandewalle, Jochen Wirths, Petra Schiller, Martin Hellmich, Lars Timmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität zu KölnBoston Scientific JapanBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsCerebral palsyDystoniaQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineDeep brain stimulationDyskinesiaPhysical therapyGross Motor Function Classification SystemClinical endpointCrossover studyProspective cohort studyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationConfidence intervalRating scaleRandomized controlled trialPediatricsPsychologyInternal medicineParkinson's diseasePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with dyskinetic cerebral palsy are often severely impaired with limited treatment options. The effects of deep brain stimulation (DBS) are less pronounced than those in inherited dystonia but can be associated with favorable quality of life outcomes even in patients without changes in dystonia severity. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to assess DBS effects in pediatric patients with pharmacorefractory dyskinetic cerebral palsy with focus on quality of life. METHODS: The method used is a prospective, single-arm, multicenter study. The primary endpoint is improvement in quality of life (CPCHILD [Caregiver Priorities & Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities]) from baseline to 12 months under therapeutic stimulation. The main key secondary outcomes are changes in Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale, Dyskinesia Impairment Scale, Gross Motor Function Measure-66, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), and Short-Form (SF)-36. After 12 months, patients were randomly assigned to a blinded crossover to receive active or sham stimulation for 24 hours each. Severity of dystonia and chorea were blindly rated. Safety was assessed throughout. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02097693. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (age: 13.4 ± 2.9 years) were recruited by seven clinical sites. Primary outcome at 12-month follow-up is as follows: mean CPCHILD increased by 4.2 ± 10.4 points (95% CI [confidence interval] -1.3 to 9.7; P = 0.125); among secondary outcomes: improvement in COPM performance measure of 1.1 ± 1.5 points (95% CI 0.2 to 1.9; P = 0.02) and in the SF-36 physical health component by 5.1 ± 6.2 points (95% CI 0.7 to 9.6; P = 0.028). Otherwise, there are no significant changes. CONCLUSION: Evidence to recommend DBS as routine treatment to improve quality of life in pediatric patients with dyskinetic cerebral palsy is not yet sufficient. Extended follow-up in larger cohorts will determine the impact of DBS further to guide treatment decisions in these often severely disabled patients. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207