Deep brain stimulation of the brainstem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus, pallidum, and thalamus is an established therapy for various movement disorders. Limbic targets have also been increasingly explored for their application to neuropsychiatric and cognitive disorders. The brainstem constitutes another DBS substrate, although the existing literature on the indications for and the effects of brainstem stimulation remains comparatively sparse. The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the pertinent anatomy, indications, and reported stimulation-induced acute and long-term effects of existing white and grey matter brainstem DBS targets. We systematically searched the published literature, reviewing clinical trial articles pertaining to DBS brainstem targets. Overall, 164 studies describing brainstem DBS were identified. These studies encompassed 10 discrete structures: periaqueductal/periventricular grey (n = 63), pedunculopontine nucleus (n = 48), ventral tegmental area (n = 22), substantia nigra (n = 9), mesencephalic reticular formation (n = 7), medial forebrain bundle (n = 8), superior cerebellar peduncles (n = 3), red nucleus (n = 3), parabrachial complex (n = 2), and locus coeruleus (n = 1). Indications for brainstem DBS varied widely and included central neuropathic pain, axial symptoms of movement disorders, headache, depression, and vegetative state. The most promising results for brainstem DBS have come from targeting the pedunculopontine nucleus for relief of axial motor deficits, periaqueductal/periventricular grey for the management of central neuropathic pain, and ventral tegmental area for treatment of cluster headaches. Brainstem DBS has also acutely elicited numerous motor, limbic, and autonomic effects. Further work involving larger, controlled trials is necessary to better establish the therapeutic potential of DBS in this complex area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".