Will adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease become a real option soon? A Delphi consensus study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While conventional deep brain stimulation (cDBS) treatment delivers continuous electrical stimuli, new adaptive DBS (aDBS) technology provides dynamic symptom-related stimulation. Research data are promising, and devices are already available, but are we ready for it? We asked leading DBS experts worldwide (n = 21) to discuss a research agenda for aDBS research in the near future to allow full adoption. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, along with a Delphi method, was employed. In the next 10 years, aDBS will be clinical routine, but research is needed to define which patients would benefit more from the treatment; second, implantation and programming procedures should be simplified to allow actual generalized adoption; third, new adaptive algorithms, and the integration of aDBS paradigm with new technologies, will improve control of more complex symptoms. Since the next years will be crucial for aDBS implementation, the research should focus on improving precision and making programming procedures more accessible.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".