ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Predictive modeling of sensory responses in deep brain stimulation.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although stimulation-induced sensations are typically considered undesirable side effects in clinical DBS therapy, there are emerging scenarios, such as computer-brain interface applications, where these sensations may be intentionally created. The selection of stimulation parameters, whether to avoid or induce sensations, is a challenging task due to the vast parameter space involved. This study aims to streamline DBS parameter selection by employing a machine learning model to predict the occurrence and somatic location of paresthesias in response to thalamic DBS. Methods: We used a dataset comprising 3,359 paresthetic sensations collected from 18 thalamic DBS leads from 10 individuals in two clinical centers. For each stimulation, we modeled the Volume of Tissue Activation (VTA). We then used the stimulation parameters and the VTA information to train a machine learning model to predict the occurrence of sensations and their corresponding somatic areas. Results: Our results show fair to substantial agreement with ground truth in predicting the presence and somatic location of DBS-evoked paresthesias, with Kappa values ranging from 0.31 to 0.72. We observed comparable performance in predicting the presence of paresthesias for both seen and unseen cases (Kappa 0.72 vs. 0.60). However, Kappa agreement for predicting specific somatic locations was significantly lower for unseen cases (0.53 vs. 0.31). Conclusion: The results suggest that machine learning can potentially be used to optimize DBS parameter selection, leading to faster and more efficient postoperative management. Outcome predictions may be used to guide clinical DBS programming or tuning of DBS based computer-brain interfaces.
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.