Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42891881›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2026

Network-guided Thalamic Neuromodulation for Epilepsy.

Sihyeong Park, Nicholas M Gregg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 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

2 authors.

Sihyeong ParkDepartment of Neurology, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, CO, USA. Sihyeong.park@cuanschutz.edu.
Nicholas M GreggDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

NINDS NIH HHS K23-NS136792
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review takes a network-based perspective on thalamic neuromodulation for epilepsy, examining how each target (e.g., anterior (ANT), centromedian (CM), and pulvinar (PUL) thalamic nuclei) engage distinct seizure networks, what evidence supports each, and how stimulation/electrophysiologic mapping can guide individualized targeting rather than a fixed, syndrome-based approach. RECENT

findingsRandomized and prospective trials have expanded the evidence for ANT and CM stimulation, while emerging data support the pulvinar as a target for posterior quadrant and temporal lobe epilepsies. Syndrome-specific sweet-spot analyses reveal distinct optimal sites within the CM for LGS and IGE. Thalamic sEEG with single-pulse stimulation and trials of DBS-style stimulation now enables characterization of seizure network engagement and identification of acute biomarkers that may inform target and parameter selection. Multi-target strategies combining thalamic nuclei, or thalamic and cortical leads, show preliminary promise for broadly distributed seizure networks. No single thalamic target is uniformly effective across epilepsy types; optimal targeting requires individualized, network-informed characterization. This supports a shift toward connectomic and individualized approaches, with future work needed to refine target selection, stimulation paradigms, and individualized optimization using clinical outcomes and electrophysiological biomarkers.

Indexed as

Deep Brain StimulationEpilepsyNerve NetThalamusAnimalsHumansDeep brain stimulationEpilepsyNeuromodulationResponsive neurostimulationThalamic stereoencephalographyThalamus

Identifiers

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.