Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDeep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the subthalamic nucleus (STN) can effectively treat motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, optimal patient selection remains challenging due to the inadequacy of outcome predictors. Most clinicians rely on levodopa response to predict DBS motor outcomes, yet previous studies have identified other MRI-based predictors including resting-state functional connectivity (FC) and volumetric measures.ObjectivesTo compare the predictive value of functional and volumetric MRI data with levodopa response alone for motor outcomes in STN DBS for PD.MethodsWe analyzed 65 participants who underwent STN DBS for PD at Washington University in St. Louis. We used relaxed LASSO regression to select factors including clinical, volumetric, and FC measures to generate predictive models for relative changes in motor scores post-DBS and assessed cross-validated performance. We then compared the relative influence of the predictive factors with standardized regression coefficients.ResultsAddition of MRI predictors (FC and volumetric) improved model fit and cross-validated model performance over levodopa response alone (levodopa alone: R2 = 0.191, RMSE 13.6; MRI + levodopa: R2 = 0.31, RMSE 12.6). Within the optimized model, aggregated FC and levodopa response exhibited the highest influence on motor outcome prediction.ConclusionsIncluding MRI-based predictors significantly enhances the prediction of motor outcomes in STN DBS compared to levodopa response alone, with FC predictors demonstrating the greatest influence in the optimized model. External validation studies are necessary to confirm the clinical utility of these predictors in routine practice.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.