ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2020
Development and testing of implanted carbon electrodes for electromagnetic field mapping during neuromodulation.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of rodent studies of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of neurological, developmental and neuropsychiatric disorders.Translational psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Wireless closed-loop deep brain stimulation using microelectrode array probes.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2024Review
- Low frequency conductivity reconstruction based on a single current injection via MREIT.Physics in medicine and biology · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDeep brain stimulation electrodes composed of carbon fibers were tested as a means of administering and imaging magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography (MREIT) currents. Artifacts and heating properties of custom carbon-fiber deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrodes were compared with those produced with standard DBS electrodes.
methodsElectrodes were constructed from multiple strands of 7-μm carbon-fiber stock. The insulated carbon electrodes were matched to DBS electrode diameter and contact areas. Images of DBS and carbon electrodes were collected with and without current flow and were compared in terms of artifact and thermal effects in phantoms or tissue samples in 7T imaging conditions. Effects on magnetic flux density and current density distributions were also assessed.
resultsCarbon electrodes produced magnitude artifacts with smaller FWHM values compared to the magnitude artifacts around DBS electrodes in spin echo and gradient echo imaging protocols. DBS electrodes appeared 269% larger than actual size in gradient echo images, in sharp contrast to the negligible artifact observed in diameter-matched carbon electrodes. As expected, larger temperature changes were observed near DBS electrodes during extended RF excitations compared with carbon electrodes in the same phantom. Magnitudes and distribution of magnetic flux density and current density reconstructions were comparable for carbon and DBS electrodes.
conclusionCarbon electrodes may offer a safer, MR-compatible method for administering neuromodulation currents. Use of carbon-fiber electrodes should allow imaging of structures close to electrodes, potentially allowing better targeting, electrode position revision, and the facilitation of functional imaging near electrodes during neuromodulation.
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.