Deep Brain Stimulation of the Pedunculopontine Nucleus Area in Parkinson Disease: MRI-Based Anatomoclinical Correlations and Optimal Target
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experimental studies led to testing of deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the pedunculopontine nucleus (PPN) as a new therapy to treat freezing of gait (FOG) in Parkinson disease (PD). Despite promising initial results fueling a growing interest toward that approach, several clinical studies reported heterogeneity in patient responses. Variation in the position of electrode contacts within the rostral brainstem likely contributes to such heterogeneity. OBJECTIVE: To provide anatomoclinical correlations of the effect of DBS of the caudal mesencephalic reticular formation (cMRF) including the PPN to treat FOG by comparing the normalized positions of the active contacts among a series of 11 patients at 1- and 2-yr follow-up and to provide an optimal target through an open-label study. METHODS: We defined a brainstem normalized coordinate system in relation to the pontomesencephalic junction. Clinical evaluations were based on a composite score using objective motor measurements and questionnaires allowing classification of patients as "bad responders" (2 patients), "mild responders" (1 patient) and "good responders" (6 patients). Two patients, whose long-term evaluation could not be completed, were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Most effective DBS electrode contacts to treat FOG in PD patients were located in the posterior part of the cMRF (encompassing the posterior PPN and cuneiform nucleus) at the level of the pontomesencephalic junction. CONCLUSION: In the present exploratory study, we performed an anatomoclinical analysis using a new coordinate system adapted to the brainstem in 9 patients who underwent PPN area DBS. We propose an optimal DBS target that allows a safe and efficient electrode implantation in the cMRF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".