ArticleStereotactic and functional neurosurgery2026
Robustness of Lead Reconstruction for Deep Brain Stimulation Modeling and Probabilistic Mapping.
Article in Stereotactic and functional neurosurgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDeep brain stimulation (DBS) has become an efficacious therapy for multiple indications. With the advent of directional leads, increasing stimulation options complexify manual programming. Therefore, automated programming algorithms based on probablisitic mapping are being tested for parameter prediction. Such approaches require computational lead reconstruction routines that are already broadly used. However, the robustness of lead reconstruction across distinct image sets of a same patient remains unclear.
methodsTo assess lead reconstruction systematically, we identified retrospectively 34 DBS patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) or essential tremor, who received two distinct postoperative CT-scans. Each CT-scan was processed independently using the Lead-DBS toolbox. Between both image sets, we compared lead tip coordinates and volumes of tissue activation (VTA) for each hemisphere. Group-level probabilistic maps of clinical improvement were compared between sets for PD patients.
resultsMean lead tip translation between CTs was 0.79 mm (range: 0.21-2.35 mm). Pneumocephalus did not significantly affect reconstruction robustness. Lead translation was comparable in the patient native space and after normalization to the template brain. Individual-level VTA comparison revealed a mean Dice coefficient of 0.73 (range: 0.33-0.94), which decreased with lower amplitudes of stimulation. Group-level N-images and clinical improvement maps were robust (Dice coefficient, respectively, 0.88 and 0.90).
conclusionComputational normalization and pneumocephalus correction were satisfying in our cohort. However, individual-level VTA variability was observed, potentially caused by slightly inaccurate CT-to-MRI co-registration or by brain shift sources other than pneumocephalus. These variabilities vanish at the group level, suggesting that current lead reconstruction routines are sufficient for probabilistic sweet spot identification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.