Dystonia Scales for Children: Challenges and Obstacles in <scp>DBS</scp> Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dystonia in pediatric patients often coexists with other movement disorders and neurodevelopmental issues. Current rating scales for evaluating pediatric deep brain stimulation (DBS) candidates are not universally applicable and often require a non-validated combination of the existing scales. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate dystonia scales used in pediatric patients, focusing on their application in DBS. METHODS: A scoping review identified the most widely used scales in pediatric DBS candidates. RESULTS: The Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale was the most frequently chosen (94.3%), often as a sole scale (78.2%). The Barry Albright Dystonia Scale followed (12.9%). The Unified Dystonia Rating Scale, Global Dystonia Rating Scale, Dyskinesia Impairment Scale and Movement Disorders in Childhood Rating Scale, were used less frequently (5.6%, 4%, 2.4% and 0.8%, respectively). Only 12% of studies included a quality-of-life scale. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a new pediatric dystonia scale for evaluating DBS candidates considering developmental and functional challenges.
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".