Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27375470›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2016

Model-Based Comparison of Deep Brain Stimulation Array Functionality with Varying Number of Radial Electrodes and Machine Learning Feature Sets.

Benjamin A Teplitzky, Laura M Zitella, YiZi Xiao, Matthew D Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. An update on best practice of deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2019
    Review
  9. Thinking Small: Progress on Microscale Neurostimulation Technology.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2017
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Benjamin A TeplitzkyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Laura M ZitellaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN, USA.
YiZi XiaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Matthew D JohnsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN, USA; Institute for Translational Neuroscience, University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Algorithms for programming deep brain stimulation systemsR01NS081118 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI HAREL, NOAM, JOHNSON, MATTHEW DOUGLAS · 2012 to 2023
$4.0M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS081118
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) leads with radially distributed electrodes have potential to improve clinical outcomes through more selective targeting of pathways and networks within the brain. However, increasing the number of electrodes on clinical DBS leads by replacing conventional cylindrical shell electrodes with radially distributed electrodes raises practical design and stimulation programming challenges. We used computational modeling to investigate: (1) how the number of radial electrodes impact the ability to steer, shift, and sculpt a region of neural activation (RoA), and (2) which RoA features are best used in combination with machine learning classifiers to predict programming settings to target a particular area near the lead. Stimulation configurations were modeled using 27 lead designs with one to nine radially distributed electrodes. The computational modeling framework consisted of a three-dimensional finite element tissue conductance model in combination with a multi-compartment biophysical axon model. For each lead design, two-dimensional threshold-dependent RoAs were calculated from the computational modeling results. The models showed more radial electrodes enabled finer resolution RoA steering; however, stimulation amplitude, and therefore spatial extent of the RoA, was limited by charge injection and charge storage capacity constraints due to the small electrode surface area for leads with more than four radially distributed electrodes. RoA shifting resolution was improved by the addition of radial electrodes when using uniform multi-cathode stimulation, but non-uniform multi-cathode stimulation produced equivalent or better resolution shifting without increasing the number of radial electrodes. Robust machine learning classification of 15 monopolar stimulation configurations was achieved using as few as three geometric features describing a RoA. The results of this study indicate that, for a clinical-scale DBS lead, more than four radial electrodes minimally improved in the ability to steer, shift, and sculpt axonal activation around a DBS lead and a simple feature set consisting of the RoA center of mass and orientation enabled robust machine learning classification. These results provide important design constraints for future development of high-density DBS arrays.

Indexed as

computational modelingDBSDBS leadDBS programing algorithmsDeep brain stimulationmachine learningneuromodulation

Identifiers

PMID27375470
PMCPMC4901081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.