MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402917707 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303381

Real-world outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation for dystonia treatment: Protocol for a prospective, multicenter, international registry

2024· article· en· W4402917707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alberto Albanese, Roshini Jain, Joachim K. Krauss

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsDystoniaDeep brain stimulationMedicineClinical Global ImpressionRating scaleQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialCervical dystoniaInformed consentProtocol (science)Physical therapyMovement disordersPsychologyDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicineAlternative medicineParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an established therapeutic approach for the treatment of dystonia. However, to date, no large-scale or comprehensive DBS dystonia patient registry has been yet undertaken. Here, we describe the protocol for a world-wide registry of clinical outcomes in dystonia patients implanted with DBS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a multicenter, international clinical outcomes registry consisting of up to 200 prospectively enrolled participants at up to 40 different sites to be implanted with a constant-current, multiple independent current controlled (MICC) DBS device (Vercise DBS Systems, Boston Scientific) for treatment of dystonia. Key inclusion criteria for registry candidates include the following: understanding of study requirements and treatment procedures, a signed written informed consent form prior to participation, and meeting all criteria established in the locally applicable Instructions for Use (IFU) for the implanted DBS system. Key clinical endpoints include (but are not limited to) the evaluation of disease state (Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale [BFMDRS], Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS), quality of life (Short Form Health Survey-36, Short Form Health Survey-10), and treatment satisfaction (Clinical Global Impression of Change [CGI-Clinician; CGI-Subject; CGI-Caregiver]) at 6-months, 12-months, 2-years, and 3-years post-lead placement. Adverse events are documented and reported using structured questionnaires. PERSPECTIVES: Treatment of patients with dystonia using DBS has progressed considering recent technological advances. This international dystonia outcomes registry aims to collect and evaluate real-world clinical data derived from patients who have been implanted with a constant-current, MICC-equipped DBS system (with available directional capabilities), per standard of care.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.010

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→