ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
Subthalamic segmentations in relation to deep brain stimulation volumes in Parkinson's disease.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeAccurate segmentation of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is paramount for optimising outcomes under deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD). Clinically available tools like Brainlab Elements (BL-E) enable automated segmentations for surgical planning, yet their spatial relationship with postoperative volumes of tissue activated (VTAs) remains insufficiently characterised. Using multi-atlas segmentation (MAS) as an external anatomical reference, we compared the spatial correspondence of STN segmentations derived from BL-E with effective VTAs following monopolar contact review.
methodsWe analysed imaging data from 40 PD patients with chronic STN-DBS. Segmentations were obtained using BL-E based on T1w and T2w scans and MAS derived from a library of 20 manually segmented midbrain nuclei atlases. Spatial correspondence was assessed using Dice Coefficients, Jaccard Indices, and Euclidean centroid distances. Distances between VTA centroids and clinically established settings for STN-DBS were calculated to evaluate targeting consistency. Statistical differences between metrics were assessed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsBL-E segmentations demonstrated superior spatial correspondence with VTAs compared to MAS, with smaller Euclidean distances between centroids (p < 0.001). Dice Coefficients and Jaccard Indices showed no significant differences (p = 0.18). VTA centroid distances to the most efficient stimulation location were consistent across hemispheres (left: 2.54 mm [1.92-3.25]; right: 2.87 mm [1.85-3.82]) MAS targets were positioned more inferiorly and anteriorly compared to BL-E targets.
conclusionClinically applied VTAs showed good spatial correspondence with planning segmentations, suggesting within-workflow reproducibility but not superior correspondence to anatomical ground truth per se. Future studies should incorporate connectomic information to more accurately reflect the functional relevance of stimulation and its therapeutic effects.
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.