MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384400818 · doi:10.1093/brain/awad239

Neurophysiological mechanisms of deep brain stimulation across spatiotemporal resolutions

2023· review· en· W4384400818 on OpenAlexafffund
Wolf‐Julian Neumann, Leon A Steiner, Luka Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersHealth CanadaAzrieli FoundationBerlin Institute of HealthBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain CanadaEuropean CommissionGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationNeuroscienceNeurophysiologyBrain stimulationStimulationPsychologyNeuromodulationMechanism (biology)Electrical brain stimulationLocal field potentialHuman brainParkinson's diseaseDiseaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep brain stimulation is a neuromodulatory treatment for managing the symptoms of Parkinson's disease and other neurological and psychiatric disorders. Electrodes are chronically implanted in disease-relevant brain regions and pulsatile electrical stimulation delivery is intended to restore neurocircuit function. However, the widespread interest in the application and expansion of this clinical therapy has preceded an overarching understanding of the neurocircuit alterations invoked by deep brain stimulation. Over the years, various forms of neurophysiological evidence have emerged which demonstrate changes to brain activity across spatiotemporal resolutions; from single neuron, to local field potential, to brain-wide cortical network effects. Though fruitful, such studies have often led to debate about a singular putative mechanism. In this Update we aim to produce an integrative account of complementary instead of mutually exclusive neurophysiological effects to derive a generalizable concept of the mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. In particular, we offer a critical review of the most common historical competing theories, an updated discussion on recent literature from animal and human neurophysiological studies, and a synthesis of synaptic and network effects of deep brain stimulation across scales of observation, including micro-, meso- and macroscale circuit alterations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations125
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207