Cognitive Outcomes Following Second‐Sided Focused Ultrasound Thalamotomy for Tremor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, staged bilateral thalamotomy has been associated with cognitive decline. OBJECTIVE: To examine cognitive outcomes of second-sided focused ultrasound (FUS) thalamotomy in individuals with medication-refractory essential tremor (ET) who previously underwent unilateral FUS thalamotomy. METHODS: Twenty-one individuals with medication-refractory ET completed cognitive testing before undergoing second-sided FUS thalamotomy and 4 months post-FUS. Cognitive changes were analyzed at the group and individual levels. RESULTS: At the group level, no significant declines were observed on any of the test scores. At the individual level, most cognitive test scores remained stable (95% of scores), with declines (2% of scores) and improvements (3% of scores) occurring infrequently. Specifically, declines were observed on only four of the 19 cognitive test scores. No more than two participants declined on any single test score and no participant declined on more than two cognitive test scores. CONCLUSIONS: Second-sided FUS thalamotomy is associated with minimal risk of cognitive decline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".