Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a well-established treatment for several neurological and neuropsychiatric conditions, including movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia, as well as Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome, epilepsy, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. SUMMARY: In recent years, research has expanded to explore the potential of DBS for other indications, including dementia, addiction, disorders of consciousness (e.g., minimally conscious state), and eating disorders. Over the past 3 decades, significant technological advancements have been made in DBS devices, including improvements in electrode design, stimulation parameters, and battery life. However, despite these technological innovations, equitable access to DBS has not progressed at a similar pace. Barriers to access remain a persistent challenge globally, influenced by socioeconomic, geographic, systemic, and policy-related factors. KEY MESSAGE: This review summarizes the current literature on access to DBS, highlighting disparities, challenges, and potential strategies to improve availability and equity in its application.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it