Non-Motor Effects of Low-Frequency Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus is an effective therapy for the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Typically, stimulation is applied at a high frequency (≥100 Hz) to alleviate motor symptoms. However, the effects on non-motor symptoms can be variable. Low-frequency oscillations are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in the non-motor functions of the subthalamic nucleus. Therefore, it has been hypothesized that low-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus (<100 Hz) may have a direct effect on these non-motor functions, thereby preferentially impacting non-motor symptoms of PD. Despite important therapeutic implications, the literature on this topic has not been summarized. METHOD: To understand the current state of the field, we performed a comprehensive systematic review of the literature assessing the non-motor effects of low-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in PD. We performed a supplementary meta-analysis to assess the effects of low- versus high-frequency stimulation on verbal fluency outcomes. RESULTS: Our search returned 7,009 results, of which we screened 4,199 results. A total of 145 studies were further assessed for eligibility, and a total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria, representing 297 patients. These studies were a mix of case reports and control trials. The four clinical outcomes measured were sleep, sensory perception, cognition, and mood. A supplementary meta-analysis of six studies investigating the impact of low-frequency stimulation on verbal fluency did not find any significant results when pooling across subgroups. CONCLUSION: LFS of the STN may have benefits on a range of cognitive and affective symptoms in PD. However, current studies in this space are heterogeneous, and the effect sizes are small. Factors that impact outcomes can be divided into stimulation and patient factors. Future work should consider the interactions between stimulation location and stimulation frequency as well as how these interact depending on the specific non-motor phenotype.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".