MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224223308 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.03.009

Probing responses to deep brain stimulation with functional magnetic resonance imaging

2022· review· en· W4224223308 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalKrembil FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingFunctional magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brainDeep brain stimulationNeuroscienceNuclear magnetic resonanceStimulationNeuroimagingBrain stimulationMedicinePsychologyPhysicsRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established treatment for certain movement disorders and has additionally shown promise for various psychiatric, cognitive, and seizure disorders. However, the mechanisms through which stimulation exerts therapeutic effects are incompletely understood. A technique that may help to address this knowledge gap is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This is a non-invasive imaging tool which permits the observation of DBS effects in vivo. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of studies in which fMRI during active DBS was performed, including studied disorders, stimulated brain regions, experimental designs, and the insights gleaned from stimulation-evoked fMRI responses. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published human studies in which fMRI was performed during active stimulation in DBS patients. The search was conducted using PubMED and MEDLINE. RESULTS: The rate of fMRI DBS studies is increasing over time, with 37 studies identified overall. The median number of DBS patients per study was 10 (range = 1-67, interquartile range = 11). Studies examined fMRI responses in various disease cohorts, including Parkinson's disease (24 studies), essential tremor (3 studies), epilepsy (3 studies), obsessive-compulsive disorder (2 studies), pain (2 studies), Tourette syndrome (1 study), major depressive disorder, anorexia, and bipolar disorder (1 study), and dementia with Lewy bodies (1 study). The most commonly stimulated brain region was the subthalamic nucleus (24 studies). Studies showed that DBS modulates large-scale brain networks, and that stimulation-evoked fMRI responses are related to the site of stimulation, stimulation parameters, patient characteristics, and therapeutic outcomes. Finally, a number of studies proposed fMRI-based biomarkers for DBS treatment, highlighting ways in which fMRI could be used to confirm circuit engagement and refine DBS therapy. CONCLUSION: A review of the literature reflects an exciting and expanding field, showing that the combination of DBS and fMRI represents a uniquely powerful tool for simultaneously manipulating and observing neural circuitry. Future work should focus on relatively understudied disease cohorts and stimulated regions, while focusing on the prospective validation of putative fMRI-based biomarkers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.272 · 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