Double-blind cross-over pilot trial protocol to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of long-term adaptive deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: After several years of brain-sensing technology development and proof-of-concept studies, adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) is ready to better treat Parkinson's disease (PD) using aDBS-capable implantable pulse generators (IPGs). New aDBS devices are capable of continuous sensing of neuronal activity from the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and contemporaneous stimulation automatically adapted to match the patient's clinical state estimated from the analysis of STN activity using proprietary algorithms. Specific studies are necessary to assess superiority of aDBS vs conventional DBS (cDBS) therapy. This protocol describes an original innovative multicentre international study aimed to assess safety and efficacy of aDBS vs cDBS using a new generation of DBS IPG in PD (AlphaDBS system by Newronika SpA, Milan, Italy). METHODS: The study involves six investigational sites (in Italy, Poland and The Netherlands). The primary objective will be to evaluate the safety and tolerability of the AlphaDBS System, when used in cDBS and aDBS mode. Secondary objective will be to evaluate the potential efficacy of aDBS. After eligibility screening, 15 patients with PD already implanted with DBS systems and in need of battery replacement will be randomised to enter a two-phase protocol, including a 'short-term follow-up' (2 days experimental sessions during hospitalisation, 1 day per each mode) and a 'long-term follow-up' (1 month at home, 15 days per each mode). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved as premarket study by the Italian, Polish, and Dutch Competent Authorities: Bioethics Committee at National Oncology Institute of Maria Skłodowska-Curie-National Research Institute in Warsaw; Comitato Etico Milano Area 2; Comitato Etico IRCCS Istituto Neurologico C. Besta; Comitato Etico interaziendale AOUC Città della Salute e della Scienza-AO Ordine Mauriziano di Torino-ASL Città di Torino; De Medisch Ethisch Toetsingscommissie van Maastricht UMC. The study started enrolling patients in January 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04681534.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".