MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375855765 · doi:10.1002/mds.29415

Adaptive Deep Brain Stimulation: From Experimental Evidence Toward Practical Implementation

2023· review· en· W4375855765 on OpenAlexaff
Wolf‐Julian Neumann, Ro’ee Gilron, Simon Little, Gerd Tinkhauser

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeParkinson VerenigingUniversity of California, San FranciscoBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungEuropean CommissionDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftInselspital, Universitätsspital BernNational Institutes of HealthBoston Scientific CorporationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationBrain stimulationNeurophysiologyNeuroscienceMovement disordersComputer scienceBrain–computer interfaceClinical trialEssential tremorMedicineParkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseasePsychologyStimulationElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Closed-loop adaptive deep brain stimulation (aDBS) can deliver individualized therapy at an unprecedented temporal precision for neurological disorders. This has the potential to lead to a breakthrough in neurotechnology, but the translation to clinical practice remains a significant challenge. Via bidirectional implantable brain-computer-interfaces that have become commercially available, aDBS can now sense and selectively modulate pathophysiological brain circuit activity. Pilot studies investigating different aDBS control strategies showed promising results, but the short experimental study designs have not yet supported individualized analyses of patient-specific factors in biomarker and therapeutic response dynamics. Notwithstanding the clear theoretical advantages of a patient-tailored approach, these new stimulation possibilities open a vast and mostly unexplored parameter space, leading to practical hurdles in the implementation and development of clinical trials. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the neurophysiological and neurotechnological aspects related to aDBS is crucial to develop evidence-based treatment regimens for clinical practice. Therapeutic success of aDBS will depend on the integrated development of strategies for feedback signal identification, artifact mitigation, signal processing, and control policy adjustment, for precise stimulation delivery tailored to individual patients. The present review introduces the reader to the neurophysiological foundation of aDBS for Parkinson's disease (PD) and other network disorders, explains currently available aDBS control policies, and highlights practical pitfalls and difficulties to be addressed in the upcoming years. Finally, it highlights the importance of interdisciplinary clinical neurotechnological research within and across DBS centers, toward an individualized patient-centered approach to invasive brain stimulation. © 2023 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations178
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207