Deep brain stimulation: is it time to change gears by closing the loop?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. Adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) is a form of invasive stimulation that was conceived to overcome the technical limitations of traditional DBS, which delivers continuous stimulation of the target structure without considering patients’ symptoms or status in real-time. Instead, aDBS delivers on-demand, contingency-based stimulation. So far, aDBS has been tested in several neurological conditions, and will be soon extensively studied to translate it into clinical practice. However, an exhaustive description of technical aspects is still missing. Approach. in this topical review, we summarize the knowledge about the current (and future) aDBS approach and control algorithms to deliver the stimulation, as reference for a deeper undestending of aDBS model. Main results. We discuss the conceptual and functional model of aDBS, which is based on the sensing module (that assesses the feedback variable), the control module (which interpretes the variable and elaborates the new stimulation parameters), and the stimulation module (that controls the delivery of stimulation), considering both the historical perspective and the state-of-the-art of available biomarkers. Significance. aDBS modulates neuronal circuits based on clinically relevant biofeedback signals in real-time. First developed in the mid-2000s, many groups have worked on improving closed-loop DBS technology. The field is now at a point in conducting large-scale randomized clinical trials to translate aDBS into clinical practice. As we move towards implanting brain-computer interfaces in patients, it will be important to understand the technical aspects of aDBS.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".