MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408575766 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.70042

Clinical and Imaging Correlates of Medication Reduction in Globus Pallidus Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease

2025· article· en· W4408575766 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel G. Di Luca, Carolina Ramirez‐Gomez, Brendan Santyr, Marco Fumagalli, Jürgen Germann, Suneil K. Kalia, Andrés M. Lozano, Alfonso Fasano

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationGlobus pallidusLevodopaStimulationParkinson's diseaseMedicineReduction (mathematics)AnesthesiaDiseaseInternal medicinePsychologyBasal ganglia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The magnitude and factors associated with levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) reduction in deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the globus pallidus interna (GPi) for Parkinson's Disease (PD) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate LEDD reduction in GPi DBS and its correlation with anatomical/clinical characteristics. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 74 patients who had undergone GPi DBS was analyzed. Regression and probabilistic efficacy mapping were performed to evaluate factors predicting LEDD reduction. RESULTS: 32.4% of GPi individuals experienced significant LEDD reduction (>30%). Anteromedial GPi stimulation was associated with higher LEDD reduction. CONCLUSION: Anteromedial stimulation of the GPi appears to be associated with medication reduction, challenging the idea that GPi DBS is ineffective at reducing LEDD. Further prospective study will be needed to validate these findings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207