Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34910744›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Comparison of methodologies for modeling directional deep brain stimulation electrodes.

Anneke M Frankemolle-Gilbert, Bryan Howell, Kelsey L Bower, Peter H Veltink, Tjitske Heida, Cameron C McIntyre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prospective Connectomic-Based Deep Brain Stimulation Programming for Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2024
    Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Anneke M Frankemolle-GilbertDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0724-8087
Bryan HowellDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.
Kelsey L BowerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.
Peter H VeltinkMIRA Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1796-9999
Tjitske HeidaMIRA Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Cameron C McIntyreDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0932-854X

Funding

Pathophysiology-based approaches to deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's diseaseP50NS098573 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI JOHNSON, MATTHEW DOUGLAS · 2016 to 2020
$9.1M
Application of Advanced Imaging and Visualization to Clinical Deep Brain StimulationR37NS116079 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MCINTYRE, CAMERON · 2021 to 2025
$1.8M
NINDS NIH HHS P50 NS098573NINDS NIH HHS R37 NS116079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established clinical therapy, and directional DBS electrode designs are now commonly used in clinical practice. Directional DBS leads have the ability to increase the therapeutic window of stimulation, but they also increase the complexity of clinical programming. Therefore, computational models of DBS have become available in clinical software tools that are designed to assist in the identification of therapeutic settings. However, the details of how the DBS model is implemented can influence the predictions of the software. The goal of this study was to compare different methods for representing directional DBS electrodes within finite element volume conductor (VC) models. We evaluated 15 different DBS VC model variants and quantified how their differences influenced estimates on the spatial extent of axonal activation from DBS. Each DBS VC model included the same representation of the brain and head, but the details of the current source and electrode contact were different for each model variant. The more complex VC models explicitly represented the DBS electrode contacts, while the more simple VC models used boundary condition approximations. The more complex VC models required 2-3 times longer to mesh, build, and solve for the DBS voltage distribution than the more simple VC models. Differences in individual axonal activation thresholds across the VC model variants were substantial (-24% to +47%). However, when comparing total activation of an axon population, or estimates of an activation volume, the differences between model variants decreased (-7% to +8%). Nonetheless, the technical details of how the electrode contact and current source are represented in the DBS VC model can directly affect estimates of the voltage distribution and electric field in the brain tissue.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAxonsDeep Brain StimulationElectric ConductivityElectrodesHumansParkinson Disease

Identifiers

PMID34910744
PMCPMC8673613

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.