ArticleExperimental neurology2013
Adaptive control of epileptiform excitability in an in vitro model of limbic seizures.
Article in Experimental neurology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Big data in status epilepticus.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2019Review
- Review
- Control of neural systems at multiple scales using model-free, deep reinforcement learning.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Recording and Modulation of Epileptiform Activity in Rodent Brain Slices Coupled to Microelectrode Arrays.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2018Article
- Dynamiceuticals: The Next Stage in Personalized Medicine.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Future of seizure prediction and intervention: closing the loop.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2015Review
- Progress in Neuroengineering for brain repair: New challenges and open issues.Brain and neuroscience advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a promising tool for treating drug-resistant epileptic patients. Currently, the most common approach is fixed-frequency stimulation (periodic pacing) by means of stimulating devices that operate under open-loop control. However, a drawback of this DBS strategy is the impossibility of tailoring a personalized treatment, which also limits the optimization of the stimulating apparatus. Here, we propose a novel DBS methodology based on a closed-loop control strategy, developed by exploiting statistical machine learning techniques, in which stimulation parameters are adapted to the current neural activity thus allowing for seizure suppression that is fine-tuned on the individual scale (adaptive stimulation). By means of field potential recording from adult rat hippocampus-entorhinal cortex (EC) slices treated with the convulsant drug 4-aminopyridine we determined the effectiveness of this approach compared to low-frequency periodic pacing, and found that the closed-loop stimulation strategy: (i) has similar efficacy as low-frequency periodic pacing in suppressing ictal-like events but (ii) is more efficient than periodic pacing in that it requires less electrical pulses. We also provide evidence that the closed-loop stimulation strategy can alternatively be employed to tune the frequency of a periodic pacing strategy. Our findings indicate that the adaptive stimulation strategy may represent a novel, promising approach to DBS for individually-tailored epilepsy treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.