MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410549606 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000001380

Imaging and neuromodulation in Parkinson's disease

2025· review· en· W4410549606 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Boutet, Jürgen Germann, Alfonso Fasano

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromodulationDeep brain stimulationMedicineParkinson's diseaseNeuroscienceDiseasePsychologyStimulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Imaging plays a key role in neuromodulation for Parkinson's disease, particularly for deep brain stimulation (DBS), which is the most frequently employed neuromodulatory treatment. Its role is rapidly expanding due to improving neuroradiological techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Imaging is crucial at each stage of DBS care: pre, intra-, and postoperative, with roles now going beyond the traditional surgical planning and lead localization. Imaging opens the door to patient selection informed by their unique preoperative features and individualized electrode placement due to the direct visualization of targets. Imaging also permits intra-operative localization of electrodes with widely accessible fluoroscopy and offers the possibility of visualizing the orientation of segmented contacts. Advanced imaging techniques have defined anatomical sweets spots and efficacious connectomes associated with best outcomes after DBS. They also offer opportunities to develop new biomarker of successful stimulation, which is critical to the future of DBS programming. SUMMARY: Imaging should be thought as a powerful tool to push the neuromodulation field towards new boundaries focusing on personalized electrode implantation and stimulation titration. This will improve patient outcomes and inform alternative neuromodulation modalities, for which the data remain limited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207