Probabilistic Mapping of Deep Brain Stimulation: Insights from 15 Years of Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) depends on precise delivery of electrical current to target tissues. However, the specific brain structures responsible for best outcome are still debated. We applied probabilistic stimulation mapping to a retrospective, multidisorder DBS dataset assembled over 15 years at our institution (n total = 482 patients; n Parkinson disease = 303; n dystonia = 64; n tremor = 39; n treatment‐resistant depression/anorexia nervosa = 76) to identify the neuroanatomical substrates of optimal clinical response. Using high‐resolution structural magnetic resonance imaging and activation volume modeling, probabilistic stimulation maps (PSMs) that delineated areas of above‐mean and below‐mean response for each patient cohort were generated and defined in terms of their relationships with surrounding anatomical structures. Our results show that overlap between PSMs and individual patients' activation volumes can serve as a guide to predict clinical outcomes, but that this is not the sole determinant of response. In the future, individualized models that incorporate advancements in mapping techniques with patient‐specific clinical variables will likely contribute to the optimization of DBS target selection and improved outcomes for patients. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:426–443
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) | 0.000 | 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".