The Effects of Deep Brain Stimulation on the Neurovascular Unit in Human Intracranial Recordings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective therapy for a range of neurological and psychiatric disorders.However, the precise mechanism of action of DBS is not fully understood.The impact of DBS on neurovascular coupling, particularly at the microcirculation level, remains unstudied.Methods: Microelectrode recordings (MER) from two electrodes (~600 mm apart) were analyzed to assess the effects of high-(HFS) and low-frequency (LFS) microstimulation on cardioballistic waveforms during DBS implantation surgery (n108 patients, 193 recordings).HFS recordings included gray matter structures (STN: n32, 52 recordings; GPi: n27, 49 recordings; SNr: n20, 23 recordings; Vim: n14, 21 recordings) and white matter tracts (n10, 13 recordings).LFS data included the STN (n12, 13 recordings), SNr (n13, 17 recordings), and GPi (n4, 5 recordings).Linear mixed models (LMM) compared waveform amplitude changes pre-and post-stimulation, and a computational model was used to link amplitude changes to arteriole diameter variations.Results: Cardioballistic waveform amplitudes were significantly increased post-HFS at the stimulating electrode (LMM; p < .0001),while LFS did not lead to a significant change (LMM; p .1723).No significant changes in cardioballistic waveform amplitudes were detected at the distal electrode (LMM; p .0981).Region-specific analysis revealed significant increases in vascular response within the Vim (LMM; p .0135;107%), STN (LMM; p .0229;79%), and GPi (LMM; p .0002;78%), while no changes were observed in white matter (LMM; p .1299;50%).Non-significant trends were observed in the SNr (LMM; p .0742;45%).Modeling of the dynamics of vessel walls in response to stimulation substantiated the hypothesis that vessel dilation can lead to an increased transmission of pulsatile forces to the microelectrode.Conclusion: Our findings reveal that HFS effectively increases local neurovascular responses in gray matter but not in white matter regions or with LFS.These results highlight the potential therapeutic implications of DBS for neurodegenerative as well as neurovascular diseases.Further research is warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms, optimize stimulation parameters, and explore novel applications in treating brain disorders involving impaired neurovascular function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".