MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Patient-Centered Perspective on Changes in Personal Characteristics After Deep Brain Stimulation

2024· article· en· W4402599461 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda R. Merner, Thomas Frazier, Paul J. Ford, Brittany Lapin, Joshua Wilt, Éric Racine, Natalie Gase, Essence Leslie, Andre Machado, Jerrold L. Vitek, Cynthia S. Kubu

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthLerner Research Institute, Cleveland ClinicUniversité de MontréalState University of New YorkInstitut de Recherche Clinique De MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaJohn Carroll UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityCleveland ClinicSyracuse University
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationVisual analogue scaleMedicinePsychologyPersonalityQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyPhysical therapyDiseaseParkinson's diseaseInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) results in improvements in motor function and quality of life in patients with Parkinson disease (PD), which might impact a patient's perception of valued personal characteristics. Prior studies investigating whether DBS causes unwanted changes to oneself or one's personality have methodological limitations that should be addressed. Objective: To determine whether DBS is associated with changes in characteristics that patients with PD identify as personally meaningful. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assessed changes in visual analog scale (VAS) ratings reflecting the extent to which patients with PD manifested individually identified personal characteristics before and 6 and 12 months after DBS at a large academic medical center from February 21, 2018, to December 9, 2021. The VAS findings were tailored to reflect the top 3 individually identified personal characteristics the patient most feared losing. The VASs were scored from 0 to 10, with 0 representing the least and 10 the most extreme manifestation of the trait. Change scores were examined at the individual level. Content analysis was used to code the qualitative data. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed from January 12, 2019 (initial qualitative coding), to December 15, 2023. Exposure: Deep brain stimulation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome variable was the mean VAS score for the top 3 personal characteristics. The secondary outcome was the incidence of meaningful changes on the patients' top 3 characteristics at the individual level. Results: Fifty-two of 54 dyads of patients with PD and their care partners (96.3%) were recruited from a consecutive series approved for DBS (36 patients [69.2%] were male and 45 care partners [86.5%] were female; mean [SD] age of patients, 61.98 [8.55] years). Two patients and 1 care partner were lost to follow-up. Increases in the mean VAS score (indicative of greater manifestation of [ie, positive changes in] specific characteristics) were apparent following DBS for ratings of both the patients (Wald χ2 = 16.104; P < .001) and care partners (Wald χ2 = 6.746; P < .001) over time. The slopes of the changes for both the patient and care partners were correlated, indicating agreement in observed changes over time. The individual level analyses indicated that scores for most patients and care partners remained the same or increased. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, participants reported greater (more positive) manifestations of individually identified, valued characteristics after DBS. These findings may be relevant to informing decision-making for patients with advanced PD who are considering DBS.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207