MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415085436 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000214201

Surgical Complications of Deep Brain Stimulation in Children Across Targets and Indications

2025· article· en· W4415085436 on OpenAlexaff
Arjun Balachandar, Leonard H. Verhey, Karim Mithani, Hrishikesh Suresh, Elizabeth N. Kerr, Sara Breitbart, Fay Kisteroff, MyLoi Huynh, Alfonso Fasano, Darius Ebrahimi‐Fakhari, Kathryn Yang, Marcella Ruppert-Gomez, Scellig Stone, Weston T. Northam, Nisha Gadgil, Jeffrey S. Raskin, Alexander G. Weil, Aristides Hadjinicolaou, Inge A. Meijer, Christian Iorio‐Morin, Carolina Gorodetsky, George M. Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineOntario Brain InstituteToronto Western HospitalMental Health Research CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationAdverse effectComplicationCentral nervous system diseaseMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is considered off-label and investigational in pediatric populations with some exceptions. There are limited data on the relative rates of complications after DBS across different indications and targets in children. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of DBS surgery for children with movement disorders (MDs; dystonia, chorea, or tic disorders), drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE), or neurodevelopmental disorders, namely, self-injurious behavior (SIB). METHODS: Data were collected both prospectively and retrospectively from children implanted with DBS through the North American multicenter Child and Youth CompreHensIve Longitudinal Database for Deep Brain Stimulation and included demographic, clinical, operative, and postoperative variables. Complications included infection, noninfectious surgical site findings (dehiscence or seroma), hardware-related issues (disconnection or impedance change), intracranial injury, or other complications. The primary outcome was major complications, defined as any adverse event causing permanent neurologic injury or requiring surgical intervention. The secondary outcome was minor complications, defined as nonmajor complications. Generalized linear models were used to assess for any significant associations with complications. RESULTS: = 0.010) occurring in 22 participants (16.9%; 14 MD, 7 DRE, 1 SIB), including infection (6.2%), high impedance (1.5%), unrelated hydrocephalus (0.8%), perioperative worsening of symptoms (3.8%), incidental tract hemorrhage (2.3%), and noninfectious peri-electrode cystic changes (0.8%). DISCUSSION: DBS-associated complications were low across multiple pediatric indications and targets, with MD associated with higher risk of major complications. Limitations include a focus on surgical postoperative complications and not stimulation-related adverse outcomes. These findings demonstrate the safety profile of DBS in children in a large cohort.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207