MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280651846 · doi:10.26685/urncst.347

Comparing Major Targets of DBS in Individuals with Treatment Refractory OCD: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4280651846 on OpenAlexaff
Hala Mahdi, Vritti Vashi

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationStria terminalisSubthalamic nucleusMedicineMedial forebrain bundleNeurostimulationAnxietySystematic reviewMEDLINENeurosciencePsychiatryPsychologyAmygdalaPathologyStriatumStimulationBiologyDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder experience lasting impairments that significantly lower their quality of life. Many neurostimulation procedures have formed a part of OCD treatment, including deep brain stimulation (DBS) - an established neurosurgical technique first introduced for treatment-refractory OCD (TROCD) involving implanting electrodes to send impulses to targeted brain regions. This paper aims to provide a systematic review of the current literature on DBS for TROCD, comparing six brain regions as potential targets. Methods: The systematic review consisted of a literature search of primary research articles on PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. The databases were assessed based on an inclusion and exclusion criteria which included patient health, comorbidities, diagnosis criteria, and age. In total, 17 articles were included. Results: The stria terminalis, ventral capsule, and nucleus accumbens were identified as key areas targeted in the current literature for TROCD DBS. The inferior thalamic peduncle, medial forebrain bundle, and subthalamic nucleus were lesser studied regions, but presented with promising outcomes. Improvements in symptom severity for each target ranged from 35%- 54% in all six regions. Through this, scientists were able to speak upon the efficacy of the treatment and can now combine past knowledge to create tests with even better functioning outcomes. Moreover, connections between neuronal pathways can now be made to help in better understanding complexities of TROCD. Discussion: Improvements in OCD symptoms were most promising for DBS to the ventral capsule and inferior thalamic peduncle. Common secondary outcomes included reduced anxiety and depression, and select studies also reported on improved quality of life and daily functional ability. Common adverse effects across the different targets were hypomania mood and anxiety-related events, with a large variety of adverse events across targets. Conclusion: The ideal target for TROCD DBS is unclear due to the large variability of Y-BOCS scores, secondary outcomes, and adverse effects reported. Future directions include personalized targets within the regions, stimulating multiple targets in the same patient, further investigating the potential of targeting the medial forebrain bundle, and studying the effects of DBS on long-term quality of life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207