NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundProgramming deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus for optimal symptom control in Parkinson's Disease (PD) requires time and trained personnel. Novel implantable neurostimulators allow local field potentials (LFP) recording, which could be used to identify the optimal (chronic) stimulation contact. However, literature is inconclusive on which LFP features and prediction techniques are most effective.ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of different LFP-based physiomarkers for predicting the optimal (chronic) stimulation contacts.MethodsA literature search was conducted across nine databases, resulting in 418 individual papers. Two independent reviewers screened the articles based on title, abstract, and full text. The quality of included studies was assessed using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. Results were categorised in four classes based on the predictive performance with respect to the a priori chance.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included. Single-feature beta-band predictions demonstrated positive performance scores in 94 % of the outcomes. Predictions based on single non-beta-frequency features yielded positive scores in only 25 % of the outcomes, with positive results mainly for high frequency oscillations. Multi-feature predictions (e.g. machine learning) achieved accuracy scores within the two highest performance classes more often than single beta-based predictions (100 % versus 39 %).ConclusionPredicting the optimal stimulation contact based on LFP recordings is feasible and can improve DBS programming efficiency in PD. Single beta-band predictions show more promising results than non-beta-frequency features alone, but are outperformed by multi-feature predictions. Future research should further explore multi-feature predictions for optimal contact identification.
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.