ArticleActa neurochirurgica2023
Comparison of two segmentation software tools for deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic and ventro-intermedius nuclei.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing Asleep Deep Brain Stimulation Targeting for Essential Tremor Using Machine Learning: The OPTIVIM Phase 2 Study.Neurosurgery · 2026Trial
- Patient, target, device, and program selection for DBS in Parkinson's disease: advancing toward precision care.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Review
- An MRI Deep Brain Adult Template With An Advanced Atlas-Based Tool For Diffusion Tensor Imaging Analysis.Scientific data · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDeep brain stimulation (DBS) relies on precise targeting of key structures such as the subthalamic nucleus (STN) for Parkinson's disease (PD) and the ventro-intermedius nucleus of the thalamus (Vim) for essential tremor (ET). Segmentation software, such as GuideXT© and Suretune©, are commercially available for atlas-based identification of deep brain structures. However, no study has compared the concordance of the segmentation results between the two software.
methodsWe retrospectively compared the concordance of segmentation of GuideXT© and Suretune© software by comparing the position of the segmented key structures with clinically predicted targets obtained using the newly developed RebrAIn© software as a reference.
resultsWe targeted the STN in 44 MRI from PD patients (88 hemispheres) and the Vim in 31 MRI from ET patients (62 hemispheres) who were elected for DBS. In 22 STN targeting (25%), the target positioning was not correlating between GuideXT© and Suretune©. Regarding the Vim, targets were located in the segmented Vim in 37%, the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) in 60%, and the STN in 3% of the cases using GuideXT©; the proportions were 34%, 60%, and 6%, respectively, using Suretune©. The mean distance from the centre of the RebrAIn© targeting to the segmented Vim by Suretune© was closer (0.64 mm) than with GuideXT© (0.96 mm; p = 0.0004).
conclusionWhile there is some level of concordance in the segmentation results of key structures for DBS treatment among software models, differences persist. Therefore, such software should still be considered as tools and should not replace clinician experience in DBS planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37787840What 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.