SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Quantified Assessment of Deep Brain Stimulation on Parkinson's Patients with Task fNIRS Measurements and Functional Connectivity Analysis: A Pilot Study

· 2020-12-07

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-118954/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Abstract Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has proved effective for Parkinsons disease (PD), but the identification of stimulation parameters relies on doctors’ subjective judgment on patient behavior.Methods: Five PD patients performed 10-meter walking tasks under different brain stimulation frequencies. During walking tests, a wearable functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) system was used to measure the concentration change of oxygenated hemoglobin (ΔHbO2) in prefrontal cortex, parietal lobe and occipital lobe. Brain functional connectivity and global efficiency were calculated to quantify the brain activities.Results: We discovered that both the global and regional brain efficiency of all patients varied with stimulation parameters, and the DBS pattern enabling the highest brain efficiency was optimal for each patient, in accordance with the clinical assessments and DBS treatment decision made by the doctors.Conclusions: Task fNIRS assessments and brain functional connectivity analysis promise a quantified and objective solution for patient-specific optimization of DBS treatment.Trial registration: The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tianjin Huanhu Hospital (2019-35), and has been registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900022715).

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.