Closed‐Loop Deep Brain Stimulation for Essential Tremor Based on Thalamic Local Field Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-frequency thalamic stimulation is an effective therapy for essential tremor, which mainly affects voluntary movements and/or sustained postures. However, continuous stimulation may deliver unnecessary current to the brain due to the intermittent nature of the tremor. OBJECTIVE: We proposed to close the loop of thalamic stimulation by detecting tremor-provoking movement states using local field potentials recorded from the same electrodes implanted for stimulation, so that the stimulation is only delivered when necessary. METHODS: Eight patients with essential tremor participated in this study. Patient-specific support vector machine classifiers were first trained using data recorded while the patient performed tremor-provoking movements. Then, the trained models were applied in real-time to detect these movements and triggered the delivery of stimulation. RESULTS: Using the proposed method, stimulation was switched on for 80.37 ± 7.06% of the time when tremor-evoking movements were present. In comparison, the stimulation was switched on for 12.71 ± 7.06% of the time when the patients were at rest and tremor-free. Compared with continuous stimulation, a similar amount of tremor suppression was achieved while only delivering 36.62 ± 13.49% of the energy used in continuous stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that responsive thalamic stimulation for essential tremor based on tremor-provoking movement detection can be achieved without any requirement for external sensors or additional electrocorticography strips. Further research is required to investigate whether the decoding model is stable across time and generalizable to the variety of activities patients may engage with in everyday life. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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) | 0.001 | 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".