MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210413024 · doi:10.1159/000521372

Where Are We with Deep Brain Stimulation? A Review of Scientific Publications and Ongoing Research

2022· review· en· W4210413024 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueStereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationMoodMovement disordersCognitionPsychologyGermanMedicineNeurosciencePsychiatryParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neuromodulatory technique that delivers adjustable electrical stimuli to brain targets to relieve symptoms associated with dysregulated neural circuitry. Over the last several decades, DBS has been applied to a number of conditions, including motor, pain, mood, and cognitive disorders. An assessment of the body of work in this field is warranted to determine where we have been, define the current state of the field, and chart a path toward the future. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the state of DBS-related research by analyzing the DBS literature as well as active studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG]). METHODS: Peer-reviewed DBS publications were extracted from PubMed. Active NIH-funded DBS projects were extracted from the RePORT database and active DFG projects from the German Research Foundation database. Records were analyzed using custom-developed algorithms to generate a detailed overview of past and present DBS-related research. Specifically, records were categorized by publication year, journal, language, country of origin, contributing authors, disorder, brain target, study design, and topic. Expected project duration and costs were also provided for active studies. RESULTS: In total, 8,974 publications, 172 active NIH-funded projects, and 34 active DFG projects were identified. Records spanned 52 different disorders across 31 distinct brain targets and showed a recent shift toward studies examining conditions other than movement disorders. Most published works involved human research (80.6% of published studies), of which 10.2% were identified as clinical trials. Increasingly, studies focused on imaging or electrophysiological changes associated with DBS (69.8% NIH-active and 70.6% DFG-active vs. 25.8% published) or developing new stimulation techniques and adaptive technologies (37.8% NIH-active and 17.6% DFG-active vs. 6.5% published). CONCLUSIONS: This overview of past and present DBS-related studies provides insight into the status of DBS research and what we can anticipate in the future concerning new indications, improved/novel target selection and stimulation paradigms, closed-loop technology, and a better understanding of the mechanisms of action of DBS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it