MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385431310 · doi:10.1016/j.jns.2023.120752

Bilateral globus pallidus internus (GPi) deep brain stimulation for cervical dystonia: Effects on motor and non-motor symptoms within 5 years follow

2023· article· en· W4385431310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anjum Aarifa Khanom, Paulo Roberto Franceschini, Steven Lane, Jibril Osman‐Farah, Antonella Macerollo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Neurological Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationCervical dystoniaMedicineSpasmodic TorticollisDepression (economics)Rating scaleMovement disordersDystoniaMoodPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationSeverity of illnessAnxietyDiseaseInternal medicinePsychologyParkinson's diseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical Dystonia ("CD") is a movement disorder characterised by sustained muscle contractions in the neck, causing involuntary posturing. Deep brain stimulation ("DBS") of the globus pallidal internus (GPi) is advanced treatment for pharmaco-refractory patients. As CD is a rare disease, cohort studies are often limited to patients of heterogenous disease profile, small sample size or short follow-up. This study firstly aimed to measure the efficacy of GPi-DBS on motor and non-motor symptoms of CD. A secondary aim was to evaluate if clinical factors - such as age, disease duration and baseline disease severity - influence variability of motor outcomes. METHODS: 37 idiopathic CD patients were recruited from movement disorders clinics at The Walton NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK. Patients were assessed pre-operatively, and 1 year, 3 years and 5 years post-operatively with the following clinical scales: Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale ("TWSTRS"), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and EuroQuol-5D. RESULTS: GPI-DBS significantly improved overall TWSTRS scores by 57% from baseline to 5Y FU (p < 0.001). It also significantly improved TWSTRS severity, disability, and pain sub-scores by 72%, 59% and 46% respectively. We did not find a significant improvement in mood or quality of life scores at 5 years. Similarly, clinical factors at baseline did not correlate with variability in motor outcome. CONCLUSION: We concluded that GPi-DBS is an effective treatment for motor symptoms and pain in CD. There was limited effect on mood and QoL, and no clinical predictive factors of outcome were identified.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Neurological Sciences→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→