STN and GPi-Deep Brain Stimulation for Primary Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the treatment of primary cervical dystonia (CD) and to compare the difference between the STN (subthalamic nucleus)-DBS and GPi (Globus Pallidus internus)-DBS. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Neurosurgery, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, from January 2012 to December 2021. METHODOLOGY: This study analysed the effects of DBS on 34 patients with primary cervical dystonia (CD) based on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS). It included 15 STN-DBS and 19 GPi-DBS cases, with TWSTRS scores collected at baseline and the final follow-up. Stimulation parameters and adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 42.77 ± 27.46 months. A significant improvement in TWSTRS total scores was observed in all patients (p <0.001), with no significant difference between STN-DBS and GPi-DBS groups (p = 0.481). The amplitude of stimulation in the GPi group was found to be higher than that in the STN group (p <0.001). Adverse events included one case of electrode breakage in the STN-DBS group, mild dyskinesias in 14 patients (twelve from the STN-DBS group and two from the GPi-DBS group), and other stimulation-related complications in four patients (one from the STN-DBS group and three from the GPi-DBS group). All stimulation-related complications were manageable with parameter adjustments. CONCLUSION: DBS can significantly improve the symptoms of primary CD patients, with no significant difference in outcomes between STN-DBS and GPi-DBS. It has a good long-term therapeutic effect and surgical safety. KEY WORDS: Cervical dystonia, Deep brain stimulation, Globus pallidus internus, Subthalamic nucleus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".