Testing of symmetric biphasic stimulation in Vim-DBS ET patients: a randomized-controlled pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Symmetric biphasic pulses have been shown to increase the therapeutic window compared to standard cathodic pulses in ET Vim-DBS patients. Furthermore, three hours of stimulation with biphasic pulses caused less stimulation-induced ataxia compared to cathodic pulses. Therefore, an investigation of the longer-term safety of biphasic pulses is warranted. Methods: Seven ET patients were included in a randomized double-blind, cross-over design of one week home-use of symmetric biphasic stimulation (anodic phase first) versus cathodic stimulation. Amplitude was set in a double-blinded way, at the tremor arrest threshold. The primary outcome was safety assessed by documenting the adverse events. Secondary outcome parameters were stimulation amplitude, tremor (Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale) and ataxia (International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale) severity, quality of life (Quality of Life in Essential Tremor Questionnaire) and cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment). Three patients continued in the open-label extension phase for 3 months, during which biphasic stimulation-only was further assessed by the same outcome parameters. Results: = 0.003). The other outcome parameters were not significantly different. During the open-label study, one patient used the remote control to increase the amplitude, leading to two falls caused by stimulation-induced ataxia. No other adverse effects occurred. Discussion and conclusion: In a small cohort, when tested for one week, symmetric biphasic pulses suggest to be safe, but require higher stimulation amplitudes. Further follow-up studies are needed to investigate long-term effects and safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".