ArticleNeuroImage2025
Comparison of structural connectomes for modeling deep brain stimulation pathway activation.
Article in NeuroImage, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionStructural connectivity models of the brain are commonly employed to identify pathways that are directly activated during deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, various connectomes differ in the technical parameters, parcellation schemes, and methodological approaches used in their construction.
objectiveThe goal of this study was to compare and quantify variability in DBS pathway activation predictions when using different structural connectomes, while using identical electrode placements and stimulation volumes in the brain. APPROACH: We analyzed four example structural connectomes: 1) Horn normative connectome (whole brain), 2) Yeh population-averaged tract-to-region pathway atlas (whole brain), 3) Petersen histology-based pathway atlas (subthalamic focused), and 4) Majtanik histology-based pathway atlas (anterior thalamus focused). DBS simulations were performed with each connectome, at four generalized locations for DBS electrode placement: 1) subthalamic nucleus, 2) anterior nucleus of thalamus, 3) ventral capsule, and 4) ventral intermediate nucleus of thalamus.
resultsThe choice of connectome used in the simulations resulted in notably distinct pathway activation predictions, and quantitative analysis indicated little congruence in the predicted patterns of brain network connectivity. The Horn and Yeh tractography-based connectomes provided estimates of DBS connectivity for any stimulation location in the brain, but have limitations in their anatomical validity. The Petersen and Majtanik histology-based connectomes are more anatomically realistic, but are only applicable to specific DBS targets because of their limited representation of pathways. SIGNIFICANCE: The widely varying and inconsistent inferences of DBS network connectivity raises substantial concern regarding the general reliability of connectomic DBS studies, especially those that lack anatomical and/or electrophysiological validation in their analyses.
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.