MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388463309 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1239092

Periaqueductal/periventricular gray deep brain stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic facial pain

2023· article· en· W4388463309 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Mandat, Pawel Zdunek, Bartosz Królicki, Krzysztof Szalecki, Henryk Koziara, Konrad A. Ciecierski, Tomasz Mandat

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeep brain stimulationNeuropathic painPeriaqueductal grayAnesthesiaChronic painNeurologySurgeryPhysical therapyParkinson's diseaseInternal medicineMidbrainCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Periaqueductal gray (PAG) and the periventricular gray (PVG) are the anatomical targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat severe, refractory neuropathic pain. Methods: Seven (four female and three male) patients were qualified for PAG/PVG DBS because of neuropathic facial pain. Frame-based unilateral implantations of DBS were conducted according to indirect planning of the PAG/PVG, contralateral to reported pain (3389, Activa SC 37603, Medtronic). The efficacy of PAG/PVG DBS on pain was measured with Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) and Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) before surgery and 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Results: The mean age of the group at the implantation was 43.7 years (range: 28-62; SD: 12.13). The mean duration of pain varied from 2 to 12 years (mean: 7.3; SD: 4.11). Five patients suffered from left-sided facial pain and two suffered right-sided facial pain. The etiology of pain among four patients was connected to ischemic brain stroke and in one patient to cerebral hemorrhagic stroke. Patients did not suffer from any other chronic medical condition The beginnings of ailments among two patients were related to craniofacial injury. NRS decreased by 54% at the 3 months follow-up. The efficacy of the treatment measured with mean NRS decreased at one-year follow-up to 48% and to 45% at 24 months follow-up. The efficacy of the treatment measured with NPSI decreased from 0.27 to 0.17 at 2 years follow-up (mean reduction by 38%). The most significant improvement was recorded in the first section of NPSI (Q1: burning- reduced by 53%). The records of the last section (number five) of the NPSI (paresthesia/dysesthesia- Q11/Q12) have shown aggravation of those symptoms by 10% at the two-years follow-up. No surgery- or hardware-related complications were reported in the group. Transient adverse effects related to the stimulation were eliminated during the programming sessions. Conclusion: PAG/PVG DBS is an effective and safe method of treatment of medically refractory neuropathic facial pain. The effectiveness of the treatment tends to decrease at 2 years follow-up. The clinical symptoms which tend to respond the best is burning pain. Symptoms like paresthesia and dysesthesia might increase after DBS treatment, even without active stimulation.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicPain Management and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207