ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Patient-specific and interpretable deep brain stimulation optimisation using MRI and clinical review data.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Predictive Models for Motor Outcomes From Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Optimisation of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) settings is a key aspect in achieving clinical efficacy in movement disorders, such as the Parkinson's disease. Modern techniques attempt to solve the problem through data-intensive statistical and machine learning approaches, adding significant overhead to the existing clinical workflows. Here, we present a geometry-based optimisation approach for DBS electrode contact and current selection, grounded in routinely collected MRI data, well-established tools (Lead-DBS) and optionally, clinical review records. Methods: The pipeline, packaged in a cross-platform tool, uses lead reconstruction data and simulation of Volume of Tissue Activated (VTA) to estimate the contacts in optimal position relative to the target structure, and suggests optimal stimulation current. The tool then allows further interactive user optimisation of the current settings. Existing electrode contact evaluations can be optionally included in the calculation process for further fine-tuning and adverse effect avoidance. Results: Based on a sample of 174 implanted electrode reconstructions from 87 Parkinson's disease patients, we demonstrate that our algorithm's DBS parameter settings are more effective in covering the target structure (Wilcoxon Conclusion: The proposed automated method for optimisation of the DBS electrode contact and current selection shows promising results and is readily applicable to existing clinical workflows. We demonstrate that the algorithmically selected contacts perform better than manual selections according to electric field calculations, without the iterative optimisation procedure.
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.