Bilateral Anterior Capsulotomy for Treatment-Resistant Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ablative surgery is an intervention of last resort for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (TROCD). Our center has been using bilateral anterior capsulotomy (BAC) for the past 20 years for patients eligible for limbic surgery. This report details our experience with BAC for TROCD. METHOD: Five patients with OCD met eligibility criteria for BAC. Entry protocols were complex and took around 6 months to complete. Stereotactic radiofrequency was used to produce the capsulotomies. Lesion length varied between 5.7 and 16.9 mm in the coronal plane. Patients were followed between 4 and 20 years. RESULTS: All 5 patients (100%) were responders as defined by the widely accepted criteria of a reduction of ≥35% in Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) score at 18-month follow-up. Four patients remained responders at the 48 months. One patient was lost to follow-up. Responder status when viewed from the perspective of the YBOCS was sustained over the 4- to 20-year follow-up with one relapse 19 years postsurgery when medications were discontinued. Real-world psychiatric outcomes were different as other vulnerabilities surfaced illustrating the multifactorial determinants of mental health. No patient had any significant long-term neurocognitive or physical side effects. CONCLUSION: BAC should remain an option of last resort for patients with severe OCD who remain unresponsive to all other interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".