Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516316›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2024

Personalized strategies of neurostimulation: from static biomarkers to dynamic closed-loop assessment of neural function.

Marta Carè, Michela Chiappalone, Vinícius Rosa Cota

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Individualized functional magnetic resonance imaging neuromodulation enhances visuospatial perception: a proof-of-concept study.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

3 authors.

Marta CarèIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Michela ChiappaloneDepartment of Informatics, Bioengineering, Robotics System Engineering (DIBRIS), University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Vinícius Rosa CotaRehab Technologies Lab, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite considerable advancement of first choice treatment (pharmacological, physical therapy, etc.) over many decades, neurological disorders still represent a major portion of the worldwide disease burden. Particularly concerning, the trend is that this scenario will worsen given an ever expanding and aging population. The many different methods of brain stimulation (electrical, magnetic, etc.) are, on the other hand, one of the most promising alternatives to mitigate the suffering of patients and families when conventional treatment fall short of delivering efficacious treatment. With applications in virtually all neurological conditions, neurostimulation has seen considerable success in providing relief of symptoms. On the other hand, a large variability of therapeutic outcomes has also been observed, particularly in the usage of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modalities. Borrowing inspiration and concepts from its pharmacological counterpart and empowered by unprecedented neurotechnological advancement, the neurostimulation field has seen in recent years a widespread of methods aimed at the personalization of its parameters, based on biomarkers of the individuals being treated. The rationale is that, by taking into account important factors influencing the outcome, personalized stimulation can yield a much-improved therapy. Here, we review the literature to delineate the state-of-the-art of personalized stimulation, while also considering the important aspects of the type of informing parameter (anatomy, function, hybrid), invasiveness, and level of development (pre-clinical experimentation versus clinical trials). Moreover, by reviewing relevant literature on closed loop neuroengineering solutions in general and on activity dependent stimulation method in particular, we put forward the idea that improved personalization may be achieved when the method is able to track in real time brain dynamics and adjust its stimulation parameters accordingly. We conclude that such approaches have great potential of promoting the recovery of lost functions and enhance the quality of life for patients.

Indexed as

activity-dependentanatomicalfunctionalhumansindividualizedin-vivoneurodynamics

Identifiers

PMID38516316
PMCPMC10954825

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.