MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206653619 · doi:10.5327/1516-3180.253

Improvement of non-motor symptoms and quality of life after DBS stimulation for dystonia: one-year follow-up

2021· article· en· W4206653619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clarice Listik, Rubens Gisbert Cury, Sara Carvalho Barbosa Casagrande, Eduardo Listik, Débora Arnaut, Natally Santiago, Júlia de Lima Arantes Machado, Jéssica de Souza Almeida, Egberto Reis Barbosa, Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationBrief Pain InventoryMedicineDystoniaMcGill Pain QuestionnaireHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleParkinson's diseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Depression (economics)Prospective cohort studyRefractory (planetary science)Rating scalePhysical therapyChronic painAnxietyNeuropathic painVisual analogue scaleAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePsychologyDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: DBS is an established treatment option in refractory dystonia, and motor outcomes have been extensively evaluated instead of the usually neglected NMS (e.g., pain). Objective: To describe the non-motor symptoms (NMS) after Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) surgery for refractory generalized inherited/idiopathic dystonia in a prospective study. Design and setting: A prospective study that evaluated patients in the Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo. Methods: This study evaluated patients before and one year after DBS surgery. We applied the following scales: Burke-Fahn-Marsden Rating Scale (BFMRS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Non-Motor Symptoms Scale for Parkinson’s Disease (NMSS-PD), Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-8 (PDQ8) Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) and McGill pain questionnaire. Results: 11 patients (38.35 ± 11.30 years) underwent surgery (36.3% women). Motor BFMRS subscore was 64.36 ± 22.94 at baseline and 33.55 ± 17.44 after surgery (p=0.003, 47.9% improvement on motor symptoms). HADS scores remained unchanged. NMSS-PD had a significant change after DBS, from 70.91 ± 59.07 to 37.18 ± 55.05 (p=0.013, 47,5% improvement). Seven patients reported pain before DBS surgery, and after one year, four patients reported chronic pain (i.e., pain improved by 42.28%). BPI’s severity and interference scores were 4.61 ± 2.84 and 4.12 ± 2.67, respectively before surgery, and 2.79 ± 2.31 (0.00–6.25) and 1.12 ± 1.32 (0.00–3.00) after DBS (p=0.043 and p=0.028). NPSI total score was 15.29 ± 13.94 before DBS, and reduced to 2.29 ± 2.98 afterward (p=0.028). McGill’s total score was 9.00 ± 3.32 before DBS, achieving 2.71 ± 2.93 after surgery (p=0.028), mostly driven by the sensory sub-score. Conclusions: We found that DBS improves NMS in dystonia, including chronic pain, anxiety, gastrointestinal symptoms, besides the already established improvement in QoL and motor symptoms.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→