An

Chun-Hui Huang, Wen-Shuo Chen, Jin-Rong Lai, Chia-Hung Cho, Yun-Ta Sung, Chih-Tsung Chang, Chii-Wann Lin

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational 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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chun-Hui Huang *Department of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Wen-Shuo Chen *Graduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Jin-Rong LaiGraduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Chia-Hung ChoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Yun-Ta SungDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Chih-Tsung ChangDepartment of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan.

Chii-Wann LinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established intervention for Parkinson's disease (PD), whereas the network-level effects of prescribed periodic visual input implemented with 10 Hz base pulses remain uncertain. Methods: We developed a conductance-based cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic (CBT) model comprising 11 Hodgkin-Huxley neuronal populations and a prescribed periodic visual-input unit (RET) to compare 130 Hz subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS with the archived periodic visual-input condition on the same calibrated PD network. Primary conditions used Results: DBS reduced the model-internal STN synaptic-current beta measure from 0.0184 ± 0.0060 to 0.0018 ± 0.0004 a.u. (Holm-corrected Discussion: These findings show persistence across the tested dose, GPi→TC, and three-parameter local domains but do not establish evoked relay fidelity, global parameter robustness, biological mechanisms, or clinical efficacy.

Indexed as

computational testbedcortico-basal ganglia-thalamic loopdeep brain stimulationHodgkin-Huxley modelneuromodulationParkinson’s diseaseperiodic visual input

Identifiers

PMID42890761

DOI10.3389/fncom.2026.1950516

PMCPMC13672486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.