Placement of deep brain stimulator electrodes using real‐time high‐field interventional magnetic resonance imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A methodology is presented for placing deep brain stimulator electrodes under direct MR image guidance. The technique utilized a small, skull-mounted trajectory guide that is optimized for accurate alignment under MR fluoroscopy. Iterative confirmation scans are used to monitor device alignment and brain penetration. The methodology was initially tested in a human skull phantom and proved capable of achieving submillimeter accuracy over a set of 16 separate targets that were accessed. The maximum error that was obtained in this preliminary test was 2 mm, motivating use of the technique in a clinical study. Subsequently, a total of eight deep brain stimulation electrodes were placed in five patients. Satisfactory placement was achieved on the first pass in seven of eight electrodes, while two passes were required with one electrode. Mean error from the intended target on the first pass was 1.0 +/- 0.8 mm (range = 0.1-1.9 mm). All procedures were considered technical successes and there were no intraoperative complications; however, one patient did develop a postoperative infection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".