Deep brain stimulation for extreme behaviors associated with autism spectrum disorder converges on a common pathway: a systematic review and connectomic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may display extreme behaviors such as self-injury or aggression that often become refractory to psychopharmacology or behavioral intervention. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a surgical alternative that modulates brain circuits that have yet to be clearly elucidated. In the current study the authors performed a connectomic analysis to identify brain circuitry engaged by DBS for extreme behaviors associated with ASD. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify prior reports of DBS as a treatment for extreme behaviors in patients with ASD. Individual patients' perioperative imaging was collected from corresponding authors. DBS electrode localization and volume of tissue activated modeling were performed. Volumes of tissue activated were used as seed points in high-resolution normative functional and structural imaging templates. The resulting individual functional and structural connectivity maps were pooled to identify networks and pathways that are commonly engaged by all targets. RESULTS: Nine patients with ASD who were receiving DBS for symptoms of aggression or self-injurious behavior were identified. All patients had some clinical improvement with DBS. Connectomic analysis of 8 patients (from the systematic review and unpublished clinical data) demonstrated a common anatomical area of shared circuitry within the anterior limb of the internal capsule. Functional analysis of 4 patients identified a common network of distant brain areas including the amygdala, insula, and anterior cingulate engaged by DBS. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a comprehensive synopsis of the evidence for DBS in the treatment of extreme behaviors associated with ASD. Using network mapping, the authors identified key circuitry common to DBS targets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".