Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33240642›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Machine learning prediction of motor response after deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease-proof of principle in a retrospective cohort.

Jeroen G V Habets, Marcus L F Janssen, Annelien A Duits, Laura C J Sijben, Anne E P Mulders, Bianca De Greef, Yasin Temel, Mark L Kuijf, Pieter L Kubben, Christian Herff

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Understanding societal challenges: a NeurotechFrontiers in neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. PassFlow: a multimodal workflow for predicting deep brain stimulation outcomes.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeroen G V HabetsDepartment of Neurosurgery, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Marcus L F JanssenDepartment of Neurosurgery, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Annelien A DuitsDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Laura C J SijbenDepartment of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anne E P MuldersDepartment of Neurosurgery, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bianca De GreefDepartment of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Yasin TemelDepartment of Neurosurgery, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mark L KuijfDepartment of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Pieter L KubbenDepartment of Neurosurgery, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Christian HerffDepartment of Neurosurgery, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite careful patient selection for subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN DBS), some Parkinson's disease patients show limited improvement of motor disability. Innovative predictive analysing methods hold potential to develop a tool for clinicians that reliably predicts individual postoperative motor response, by only regarding clinical preoperative variables. The main aim of preoperative prediction would be to improve preoperative patient counselling, expectation management, and postoperative patient satisfaction.

methodsWe developed a machine learning logistic regression prediction model which generates probabilities for experiencing weak motor response one year after surgery. The model analyses preoperative variables and is trained on 89 patients using a five-fold cross-validation. Imaging and neurophysiology data are left out intentionally to ensure usability in the preoperative clinical practice. Weak responders (

resultsThe model predicts weak responders with an average area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic of 0.79 (standard deviation: 0.08), a true positive rate of 0.80 and a false positive rate of 0.24, and a diagnostic accuracy of 78%. The reported influences of individual preoperative variables are useful for clinical interpretation of the model, but cannot been interpreted separately regardless of the other variables in the model.

conclusionThe model's diagnostic accuracy confirms the utility of machine learning based motor response prediction based on clinical preoperative variables. After reproduction and validation in a larger and prospective cohort, this prediction model holds potential to support clinicians during preoperative patient counseling.

Indexed as

Deep brain stimulationOutcomeParkinson’s diseasePredictionSubthalamic nucleus

Identifiers

PMID33240642
PMCPMC7680051
OpenAlexW3103597494

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.