MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395082927 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1786026

Fundamentals of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease in clinical practice: part 1

2024· review· en· W4395082927 on OpenAlexaff
Camila Aquino, Mariana Moscovich, Murilo Martinez Marinho, Lorena Broseghini Barcelos, André C. Felício, Matthew Halverson, Clement Hamani, Henrique Ballalai Ferraz, Renato P. Munhoz

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationParkinson's diseaseMotor symptomsMovement disordersLevodopaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineDiseaseClinical PracticeNeuroscienceIntensive care medicinePsychologyPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is recognized as an established therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD) and other movement disorders in the light of the developments seen over the past three decades. Long-term efficacy is established for PD with documented improvement in the cardinal motor symptoms of PD and levodopa-induced complications, such as motor fluctuations and dyskinesias. Timing of patient selection is crucial to obtain optimal benefits from DBS therapy, before PD complications become irreversible. The objective of this first part review is to examine the fundamental concepts of DBS for PD in clinical practice, discussing the historical aspects, patient selection, potential effects of DBS on motor and non-motor symptoms, and the practical management of patients after surgery.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos de Neuro-PsiquiatriaSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207