Lateralized Subthalamic Stimulation for Axial Dysfunction in Parkinson's Disease: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with Parkinson's disease might develop treatment-resistant axial dysfunction after bilateral subthalamic stimulation. OBJECTIVES: To study whether lateralized stimulation (unilateral 50% amplitude reduction) for ≥21 days results in ≥0.13 m/s faster gait velocity in the dopaminergic ON state in these patients, and its effects on motor and axial function, quantitative gait and speech measures, quality of life, and selected cognitive tasks. METHODS: Randomized, double-blinded, double-crossover trial. RESULTS: In 22 participants (51-79 years old, 15 women), there were no significant changes in gait velocity, quality of life, cognitive, and speech measures. Reducing left-sided amplitude resulted in a 2.5-point improvement in axial motor Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) (P = 0.005, uncorrected) and a 1.9-point improvement in the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (P = 0.024, uncorrected). CONCLUSIONS: Lateralized subthalamic stimulation does not result in meaningful improvement in gait velocity in patients with Parkinson's disease who develop treatment-resistant axial dysfunction after bilateral subthalamic stimulation. Left subthalamic overstimulation may contribute to axial deterioration in these patients. © 2022 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".