MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390665184 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2023.1330752

Effect of deep brain stimulation compared with drug therapy alone on the progression of Parkinson’s disease

2024· article· en· W4390665184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenwen Dong, Chang Qiu, Yue Lu, Bei Luo, Xu Jiang, Lei Chang, Jiuqi Yan, Jian Sun, Weiguo Liu, Li Zhang, Wenbin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNanjing Medical University
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMedicineRating scaleParkinson's diseaseHamdQuality of life (healthcare)LevodopaMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineClinical Global ImpressionDepression (economics)Physical therapyAnxietyDiseasePsychologyPsychiatryDementiaPlaceboPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) symptoms deteriorate with disease progression. Although deep brain stimulation (DBS) can effectively improve the motor signs of PD patients, it is not yet known whether DBS surgery, which is an invasive treatment modality, may change the progression of PD. Objective: The aim of this work was to compare the effect of DBS with that of drug treatment on the progression of PD. Methods: A total of 77 patients with PD with the Hoehn and Yahr scale (HY) stage of 2.5 or 3 were included, and were divided into 34 in the drug therapy alone group (Drug-G) and 43 in the DBS therapy group (DBS-G). All patients were subjected to a follow-up of 2 years, and disease severity was assessed by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS-III), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), and the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores. In addition, the quality of life of patients and the burden on their family were assessed by the 39-item PD questionnaire (PDQ-39) scores, daily levodopa equivalent dose (LED), patient's annual treatment-related costs, and the Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale (ZCBS) score. The changes in relevant scale scores between the two groups were compared at each follow-up stage. Results: The UPDRS-III score of the patients in the "off" state increased from year to year in both groups, and the degree of increase of this score was greater in the DBS-G than in the Drug-G group. The MOCA score in both groups began to decline in the 2nd year of follow-up, and the decline was greater in the Drug-G than in the DBS-G group. DBS treatment did not affect patients' psychiatric disorders. The PDQ39, LED, costs, and ZCBS were negatively correlated with the follow-up time in patients in the DBS-G group, and positively correlated with the follow-up time in patients in the Drug-G. Conclusion: PD is progressive regardless of treatment. The findings from this follow-up study suggest that the disease progression of patients in DBS-G may be slightly faster compared to the drug-G, but the advantages of DBS are also evident. Indeed, DBS better improves patient's motor signs and quality of life and reduces the family burden. In addition, DBS has less impact on patients in terms of cognitive and mental effects.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207