ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Validation of automated image-guided programming in STN-DBS for Parkinson's disease.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current steering with multiple independent current control (MICC) and directional leads has expanded programming options in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS), but has also increased programming complexity. Manual image-guided programming (mIGP) using patient-specific anatomical information facilitates optimization of stimulation settings. More recently, algorithm-based platforms for automated image-guided programming (aIGP) have been developed, although their clinical validity remains unclear. Methods: Thirteen patients with Parkinson's disease who had undergone STN-DBS using a MICC directional lead system and had stable motor symptoms under mIGP established with StimviewTM XT were enrolled. aIGP was performed using IlluminaTM 3D under two conditions. In Part 1, the target region was the STN and the avoid region was the internal capsule. In Part 2, the target region was the STN, whereas the red nucleus and substantia nigra were designated as avoid regions to direct stimulation toward the dorsolateral STN. Stimulation amplitude, pulse width, and frequency were unchanged; only the spatial distribution of stimulation was modified. Motor symptoms were assessed using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS III) immediately before and 1 hour after switching from mIGP to aIGP-derived settings. Results: In Part 1, 4 of 13 patients showed obvious worsening shortly after switching and were immediately returned to mIGP. Of the remaining 9, 8 reverted to mIGP within 1 week, whereas 1 continued aIGP because of improved speech difficulty. Mean UPDRS III scores changed from 16.4 ± 1.7 to 19.6 ± 2.5 ( Conclusion: Although aIGP rapidly generated anatomically plausible current-steering configurations, most patients did not maintain these settings, indicating limited clinical acceptability compared with expert-guided mIGP. Further refinement, particularly with more selective emphasis on the dorsolateral STN, will be necessary before aIGP can be considered a reliable alternative.
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.