ArticleBrain stimulation
Evaluation of DBS computational modeling methodologies using in-vivo electrophysiology in Parkinson's disease.
Article in Brain stimulation. 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.
- An algorithmic procedure for measuring deep brain stimulation-induced capsular activation using motor evoked potentials.Journal of neural engineering · 2025Article
- An algorithmic procedure for measuring deep brain stimulation-induced capsular activation using motor evoked potentials.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Comprehensive map of axonal pathway activation as a function of subthalamic deep brain stimulation location and parameter settings.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOptimizing deep brain stimulation (DBS) parameter settings requires postoperative adjustments through a time-consuming trial-and-error process. As such, researchers have been developing computational models to guide DBS programming. Despite growing interest in image-guided DBS technology, and recent adoption into clinical practice, the direct validation of the prediction accuracy remains limited.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to establish a comparative framework for validating the accuracy of various DBS computational modeling methodologies in predicting the activation of clinically relevant pathways using in vivo measurements from PD patients undergoing subthalamic (STN) DBS surgery.
methodsIn this study, we compared the accuracy of six computational modeling variations for predicting the activation of the corticospinal/bulbar tract (CSBT) and cortico-subthalamic hyperdirect pathway (HDP) using very short- (<2 ms) and short-latency (2-4 ms) cortical evoked potentials (cEPs). We constructed the variations using three key factors: modeling method (Driving Force [DF] vs. Volume of Tissue Activated [VTA]), imaging space (native vs. normative), and anatomical representation (pathway vs. structure). The model performances were quantified using the coefficient of determination (R
resultsWe compared model accuracy for 11 PD patients. The DF-Native-Pathway model was the most accurate method for quantitatively predicting experimental subcortical pathway activations. Additionally, our analysis showed that using normative brain space significantly diminished the accuracy of model predictions.
conclusionThe choice of methodology should depend on the specific application and the required level of precision for the intended analysis. However, model parameters should be optimized to accurately predict known experimental activation measures.
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.