ArticleEpilepsia2026
Medial pulvinar stereoelectroencephalographic biomarkers associated with deep brain stimulation response in focal drug-resistant epilepsy.
Article in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) represents an emerging therapeutic option for patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy who are ineligible for or have failed resective surgery. To optimize outcomes and guide DBS lead placement, thalamic stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) has been proposed. This monocentric retrospective study aimed to identify interictal and ictal SEEG biomarkers of the medial pulvinar (PuM) associated with favorable PuM-DBS response. Six patients (four female, two male) underwent SEEG including PuM sampling, were deemed unsuitable for resective surgery, and subsequently received bilateral PuM-DBS. In total, eight PuMs were sampled in SEEG: four bilaterally (two patients) and four unilaterally (four patients). The SEEG exploration covered both the PuM and the ipsilateral epileptogenic zone network (EZN) in four patients, whereas in the other two the EZN was bilateral but PuM sampling was unilateral. All SEEG signal analyses were performed on the PuM sampling contacts available in each patient. Interictal SEEG analysis included spike rates and nonlinear functional connectivity (h2), whereas ictal analyses combined visual inspection with quantitative biomarkers: epileptogenicity index (EI), connectivity epileptogenicity index (cEI), permutation entropy index (PEI), and delta entropy (ΔE). Two patients were responders (≥50% seizure reduction at 1 year). PuM spike rates, connectivity, and EI and cEI values did not differentiate responders from nonresponders. In contrast, entropy-based measures were significantly higher in responders: PEI (false discovery rate [FDR]-p = .024) and ΔE (FDR-p = .034). These findings suggest that ictal PuM complexity disruption, quantified through entropy-based SEEG metrics (PEI and ΔE), may represent a candidate biomarker of response to medial pulvinar DBS and warrants validation in larger cohorts.
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.