ArticleBrain sciences2016
Investigation into Deep Brain Stimulation Lead Designs: A Patient-Specific Simulation Study.
Article in Brain sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fabrication and Dose-Response Simulation of Soft Dual-Sided Deep Brain Stimulation Electrode.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Towards robust probabilistic maps in Deep Brain Stimulation: exploring the impact of patient number, stimulation counts, and statistical approaches.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2025Article
- Optimizing neuroscience data management by combining REDCap, BIDS and SQLite: a case study in Deep Brain Stimulation.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Functional Enhancement and Characterization of an Electrophysiological Mapping Electrode Probe with Carbonic, Directional Macrocontacts.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Deep Brain Stimulation: Emerging Tools for Simulation, Data Analysis, and Visualization.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Towards Tracking of Deep Brain Stimulation Electrodes Using an Integrated Magnetometer.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Novel Electrode Designs for Neurostimulation in Regenerative Medicine: Activation of Stem Cells.Bioelectricity · 2020Review
- Stimulation maps: visualization of results of quantitative intraoperative testing for deep brain stimulation surgery.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2020Article
- Biomarkers and neuromodulation techniques in substance use disorders.Bioelectronic medicine · 2020Review
- Anatomical brain structures normalization for deep brain stimulation in movement disorders.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2020Article
- Precision electronic medicine in the brain.Nature biotechnology · 2019Review
- White matter tracing combined with electric field simulation - A patient-specific approach for deep brain stimulation.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2019Article
- Analysis of patient-specific stimulation with segmented leads in the subthalamic nucleus.PloS one · 2019Article
- Integrity Assessment of a Hybrid DBS Probe that Enables Neurotransmitter Detection Simultaneously to Electrical Stimulation and Recording.Micromachines · 2018Article
- Electric Field Comparison between Microelectrode Recording and Deep Brain Stimulation Systems-A Simulation Study.Brain sciences · 2018Article
- Predicting irreversible electroporation-induced tissue damage by means of magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Current Practice and the Future of Deep Brain Stimulation Therapy in Parkinson's Disease.Seminars in neurology · 2017Review
- Patient-Specific Electric Field Simulations and Acceleration Measurements for Objective Analysis of Intraoperative Stimulation Tests in the Thalamus.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2016Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrode designs offer operation in voltage and current mode and capability to steer the electric field (EF). The aim of the study was to compare the EF distributions of four DBS leads at equivalent amplitudes (3 V and 3.4 mA). Finite element method (FEM) simulations (n = 38) around cylindrical contacts (leads 3389, 6148) or equivalent contact configurations (leads 6180, SureStim1) were performed using homogeneous and patient-specific (heterogeneous) brain tissue models. Steering effects of 6180 and SureStim1 were compared with symmetric stimulation fields. To make relative comparisons between simulations, an EF isolevel of 0.2 V/mm was chosen based on neuron model simulations (n = 832) applied before EF visualization and comparisons. The simulations show that the EF distribution is largely influenced by the heterogeneity of the tissue, and the operating mode. Equivalent contact configurations result in similar EF distributions. In steering configurations, larger EF volumes were achieved in current mode using equivalent amplitudes. The methodology was demonstrated in a patient-specific simulation around the zona incerta and a "virtual" ventral intermediate nucleus target. In conclusion, lead design differences are enhanced when using patient-specific tissue models and current stimulation mode.
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.