Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39296917›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

The Neurostimulationist will see you now: prescribing direct electrical stimulation therapies for the human brain in epilepsy and beyond.

Peter N Hadar, Rina Zelmann, Pariya Salami, Sydney S Cash, Angelique C Paulk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A guide to neuromodulation in drug-resistant epilepsy.Epileptic disorders : international epilepsy journal with videotape · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Peter N HadarDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Rina ZelmannDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Pariya SalamiDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Sydney S CashDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Angelique C PaulkDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

Seizure focus delineation using spontaneous and stimulus evoked EEG featuresK24NS088568 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI CASH, SYDNEY S · 2015 to 2019
$923k
NINDS NIH HHS K24 NS088568
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the pace of research in implantable neurotechnology increases, it is important to take a step back and see if the promise lives up to our intentions. While direct electrical stimulation applied intracranially has been used for the treatment of various neurological disorders, such as Parkinson's, epilepsy, clinical depression, and Obsessive-compulsive disorder, the effectiveness can be highly variable. One perspective is that the inability to consistently treat these neurological disorders in a standardized way is due to multiple, interlaced factors, including stimulation parameters, location, and differences in underlying network connectivity, leading to a trial-and-error stimulation approach in the clinic. An alternate view, based on a growing knowledge from neural data, is that variability in this input (stimulation) and output (brain response) relationship may be more predictable and amenable to standardization, personalization, and, ultimately, therapeutic implementation. In this review, we assert that the future of human brain neurostimulation, via direct electrical stimulation, rests on deploying standardized, constrained models for easier clinical implementation and informed by intracranial data sets, such that diverse, individualized therapeutic parameters can efficiently produce similar, robust, positive outcomes for many patients closer to a prescriptive model. We address the pathway needed to arrive at this future by addressing three questions, namely: (1) why aren't we already at this prescriptive future?; (2) how do we get there?; (3) how far are we from this Neurostimulationist prescriptive future? We first posit that there are limited and predictable ways, constrained by underlying networks, for direct electrical stimulation to induce changes in the brain based on past literature. We then address how identifying underlying individual structural and functional brain connectivity which shape these standard responses enable targeted and personalized neuromodulation, bolstered through large-scale efforts, including machine learning techniques, to map and reverse engineer these input-output relationships to produce a good outcome and better identify underlying mechanisms. This understanding will not only be a major advance in enabling intelligent and informed design of neuromodulatory therapeutic tools for a wide variety of neurological diseases, but a shift in how we can predictably, and therapeutically, prescribe stimulation treatments the human brain.

Indexed as

direct electrical stimulationepilepsyhumanintracranialneural activity

Identifiers

PMID39296917
PMCPMC11408201

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.