ReviewBrain sciences2023
A Brief History of Stereotactic Atlases: Their Evolution and Importance in Stereotactic Neurosurgery.
Review in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the human thalamus: a historical review of thalamic atlases from histology to modern neuroanatomy.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2026Review
- Comparison of augmented reality visualization approaches in minimally invasive neurosurgery guidance: 2D, tablet, HMD and autostereoscopic displays.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Standardization of postmortem human brainstem along the rostrocaudal axis to accommodate for inter-specimen structural heterogeneity.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- High-Throughput Microelectrode Arrays for Precise Functional Localization of the Globus Pallidus Internus.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
- Minimising the rate of vascular complications in Deep Brain Stimulation surgery for the management of Parkinson's disease: a single-centre 600-patient case series.BMJ neurology open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Following the recent acquisition of unprecedented anatomical details through state-of-the-art neuroimaging, stereotactic procedures such as microelectrode recording (MER) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) can now rely on direct and accurately individualized topographic targeting. Nevertheless, both modern brain atlases derived from appropriate histological techniques involving post-mortem studies of human brain tissue and the methods based on neuroimaging and functional information represent a valuable tool to avoid targeting errors due to imaging artifacts or insufficient anatomical details. Hence, they have thus far been considered a reference guide for functional neurosurgical procedures by neuroscientists and neurosurgeons. In fact, brain atlases, ranging from the ones based on histology and histochemistry to the probabilistic ones grounded on data derived from large clinical databases, are the result of a long and inspiring journey made possible thanks to genial intuitions of great minds in the field of neurosurgery and to the technical advancement of neuroimaging and computational science. The aim of this text is to review the principal characteristics highlighting the milestones of their evolution.
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.