MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411053636 · doi:10.1162/imag.a.52

Toward a standard preoperative MRI protocol for functional neurosurgery

2025· article· en· W4411053636 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Güttler, Johannes Achtzehn, Patric Blomstedt, Stéphan Charbardès, Katharina Faust, Stefan Hetzer, Brian H. Kopell, Joachim K. Krauss, Andrés M. Lozano, Joseph S. Neimat, Francisco A. Ponce, Pratik Rohatgi, John D. Rolston, Mathieu Santin, Philip A. Starr, Veerle Visser‐Vandewalle, Andrea A. Kühn, Andreas Horn, Anna Tietze

Bibliographic record

VenueImaging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJulius-Maximilians-Universität WürzburgDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAarhus UniversitetshospitalNew Venture FundNational Institutes of HealthBoston Scientific CorporationEU Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease ResearchAarhus Universitet
KeywordsNeurosurgeryProtocol (science)MedicineMedical physicsRadiologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is a well-established approach to treat movement disorders such as Parkinson’s Disease, dystonia or essential tremor. For optimal therapy response, accurate electrode placement is critical requiring high signal-to-noise of target areas in preoperative MRI. Currently, imaging protocols vary considerably between DBS centers, making it difficult to compare results or pool data for research purposes. Here, various currently employed MRI sequences from several DBS centers are evaluated regarding their suitability for DBS targeting and a protocol is suggested taking image quality and practical considerations into account. Two healthy subjects (52-year-old female and a 37-year-old male) were each scanned with various sequences (5 T2w, 1 PDw, 4 T2FLAIRw, 2 T2*w, 5 SWI, 2 FGATIR, 1 T1TIR, and 2 QSM techniques) that then were rated by 12 experienced DBS surgeons for their suitability for targeting the subthalamic nucleus (STN), the internal globus pallidus internus (GPi), and the ventrointermediate (VIM) thalamic nucleus. For a subset of sequences, surgeons were asked to identify the optimal DBS target in the STN and GPi. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were calculated and correlated to intra-rater z-scores and distances of target coordinates. For STN-DBS, surgeons rated T2w, most SWI, QSM, and T2FLAIRw the highest. For GPi-DBS, FGATIR, PDw, and SWI and for VIM-DBS, FGATIR were deemed the most suitable. Higher CNR correlated with higher intra-rater z-scores (R2 = 0.29, p < .005) which improved targeting (R2 = 0.18, p < .05). Our MRI protocol suggestion is a first step toward standardizing preoperative imaging. All imaging data, MRI sequence parameters, and protocol files are made openly available.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImaging NeuroscienceSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207