Deep Brain Stimulation for Refractory Status Dystonicus in Children: Multicenter Case Series and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to better understand the workflow, outcomes, and complications of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for pediatric status dystonicus (SD). We present a systematic review, alongside a multicenter case series of pediatric patients with SD treated with DBS. METHODS: We collected individual data regarding treatment, stimulation parameters, and dystonia severity for a multicenter case series (n = 8) and all previously published cases (n = 77). Data for case series were used to create probabilistic voxelwise maps of stimulated tissue associated with dystonia improvement. RESULTS: In our institutional series, DBS was implanted a mean of 25 days after SD onset. Programming began a mean of 1.6 days after surgery. All 8 patients in our case series and 73 of 74 reported patients in the systematic review had resolution of their SD with DBS, most within 2 to 4 weeks of surgery. Mean follow-up for patients in the case series was 16 months. DBS target for all patients in the case series and 68 of 77 in our systematic review was the globus pallidus pars interna (GPi). In our case series, stimulation of the posterior-ventrolateral GPi was associated with improved dystonia. Mean dystonia improvement was 32% and 51% in our institutional series and systematic review, respectively. Mortality was 4% in the review, which is lower than reported for treatment with pharmacotherapy alone (10-12.5%). INTERPRETATION: DBS is a feasible intervention with potential to reverse refractory pediatric SD and improve survival. More work is needed to increase awareness of DBS in this setting, so that it can be implemented in a timely manner. ANN NEUROL 2023.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".