Directional deep brain stimulation: an intraoperative double-blind pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation of different targets has been shown to drastically improve symptoms of a variety of neurological conditions. However, the occurrence of disabling side effects may limit the ability to deliver adequate amounts of current necessary to reach the maximal benefit. Computed models have suggested that reduction in electrode size and the ability to provide directional stimulation could increase the efficacy of such therapies. This has never been demonstrated in humans. In the present study, we assess the effect of directional stimulation compared to omnidirectional stimulation. Three different directions of stimulation as well as omnidirectional stimulation were tested intraoperatively in the subthalamic nucleus of 11 patients with Parkinson's disease and in the nucleus ventralis intermedius of two other subjects with essential tremor. At the trajectory chosen for implantation of the definitive electrode, we assessed the current threshold window between positive and side effects, defined as the therapeutic window. A computed finite element model was used to compare the volume of tissue activated when one directional electrode was stimulated, or in case of omnidirectional stimulation. All but one patient showed a benefit of directional stimulation compared to omnidirectional. A best direction of stimulation was observed in all the patients. The therapeutic window in the best direction was wider than the second best direction (P = 0.003) and wider than the third best direction (P = 0.002). Compared to omnidirectional direction, the therapeutic window in the best direction was 41.3% wider (P = 0.037). The current threshold producing meaningful therapeutic effect in the best direction was 0.67 mA (0.3-1.0 mA) and was 43% lower than in omnidirectional stimulation (P = 0.002). No complication as a result of insertion of the directional electrode or during testing was encountered. The computed model revealed a volume of tissue activated of 10.5 mm(3) in omnidirectional mode, compared with 4.2 mm(3) when only one electrode was used. Directional deep brain stimulation with a reduced electrode size applied intraoperatively in the subthalamic nucleus as well as in the nucleus ventralis intermedius of the thalamus significantly widened the therapeutic window and lowered the current needed for beneficial effects, compared to omnidirectional stimulation. The observed side effects related to direction of stimulation were consistent with the anatomical location of surrounding structures. This new approach opens the door to an improved deep brain stimulation therapy. Chronic implantation is further needed to confirm these findings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".