MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390537438 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.13970

Reply: Evaluating the Scope and Safety of Bilateral <scp>MRgFUS</scp> Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor: A Critical Analysis

2024· letter· en· W4390537438 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nadia Scantlebury, Jennifer S. Rabin, Emmanuel De Schlichting, Clement Hamani, Michael L. Schwartz, Nir Lipsman, Agessandro Abrahão

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Mickael Aubignat for reading our paper and for the letter entitled “Evaluating the Scope and Safety of Bilateral MRgFUS Thalamotomy for Essential Tremor: A Critical Analysis,”1 which expands the discussion of important safety aspects of our early-stage trial of bilateral, staged magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) thalamotomy for patients with medication-resistant essential tremor (mrET).2 We implemented a risk-ascending strategy to mitigate the potential for adverse events historically associated with bilateral thalamotomies. In particular, we prespecified an inter-procedural interval of at least 1 year following the first MRgFUS thalamotomy; conservative in comparison to similar trials, including one with an inter-procedural interval of 5 months.3 Akin to other bilateral, staged MRgFUS trials, we defined restrictive eligibility criteria a priori, whereby patients with persistent adverse events (AEs) from the first MRgFUS procedure were excluded from the second.3 While other trials used clinical judgment to exclude patients with significant AEs, we specified objective exclusionary parameters based on the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) and extensive neuropsychological testing. Patients with SARA gait subscore ≥2 points (ie, gait “clearly abnormal, tandem walking >10 steps not possible” or worse), SARA speech subscore ≥2 points (ie, “impaired speech, but easy to understand” or worse) or who presented with language impairment did not undergo the second thalamotomy. In line with other studies,3 our trial demonstrated the safety of the contralateral MRgFUS procedure following a safe and efficacious first thalamotomy. As such, the current safety evidence from our trial and others may not be generalizable to mrET patients with permanent AEs or suboptimal tremor amelioration following the first intervention. With the recent regulatory approval of bilateral, staged MRgFUS thalamotomy in the United States and Europe,4 we anticipate that more bilateral procedures with less stringent eligibility criteria will be reported in mrET patients. These data will be important in informing the safety profile and eligibility envelope of the second MRgFUS procedure. For instance, in the present phase of our risk-ascending strategy, we are less concerned about cognitive decline following thalamotomy. This decision was based on comprehensive neuropsychological data from recent trials2, 3 and a meta-analysis,5 which collectively indicate that thalamotomy is safe from a cognitive standpoint. However, we remain cautious about performing a second thalamotomy in patients with MRgFUS-induced disequilibrium or pre-existing gait impairment related to other etiologies. Lastly, future multicenter long-term studies will inform data-driven eligibility criteria and prediction of safety and efficacy endpoints. Using neurophysiology, advanced neuroimaging and quantification of safety outcome measures, such as gait and speech analyses, these studies will allow for deep tremor phenotyping and lesioning characterization. (1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the first draft, B. Review and Critique. N.S.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B J.S.R.: 1A, 3B E.D.S.: 3A, 3B, 3C, 3A, 3B C.H.: 3B M.L.S.: 3B N.L.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B A.A.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3B Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest: The authors acknowledge support from the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. Financial Disclosures for Previous 12 Months: Grants: The authors acknowledge support from the Harquail Centre for Neuromodulation, Sunnybrook Research Institute and the Hurvitz Brain Sciences Program. J.S.R. also receives support from the Dr. Sandra Black Centre for Brain Resilience & Recovery. N.L. receives support from InSightec, Veteran's Affairs Canada, Power Corporation, the Weston Brain Institute and the Alternate Planning Fund. C.H. and N.L. are supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the New Frontiers in Research Fund. A.A. and N.L. received support from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, and the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. A.A. receives support from the ALS Society of Canada. Honoraria: A.A. has received an honorarium from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma and Amylyx. Ethical Compliance Statement: All activities were performed under approval of the Sunnybrook Research Ethics Board (Project ID 3341). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to participation. We confirm that we read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this work is consistent with those guidelines.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207