Posterior Hypothalamic Region Deep Brain Stimulation for the Treatment of Aggression Disorders in Patients with Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aggressive disorders, in patients with intellectual disability, are satisfactorily managed with an educational, psychological, and pharmacological approach. Posterior hypothalamic region deep brain stimulation emerged in the last two decades as a promising treatment for patients with severe aggressive disorders. However, limited experiences are reported in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations by querying PubMed and Embase on August 24th, 2022, with the ensuing string parameters: ([deep brain stimulation] OR [DBS]) AND ([aggressiv*] OR disruptive). Cochrane Library, DynaMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were consulted using the combination of keywords "deep brain stimulation" and "aggressive" or "aggression". The clinical outcome at the last follow-up and the rate of complications were considered primary and secondary outcomes of interest. RESULTS: The initial search identified 1,080 records, but only 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered. The analysis of clinical outcome and complications was therefore performed on a total of 60 patients. Quality of all selected studies was classified as high, but one. Mean Overt Aggression Scale (OAS) improvement was 68%, while Inventory for Client Agency Planning (ICAP) improvement ranged between 38.3% and 80%. Complications occurred in 4 patients (6.7%). CONCLUSION: Posterior hypothalamic region deep brain stimulation may be considered a valuable option for patients with severe aggression disorders and ID. This review can represent a mainstay for those who will be engaged in the surgical treatment of these patients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it