Abstract
Objective Open questions remain regarding the optimal target, or sweetspot, for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in e.g. Parkinson’s Disease. Previous studies introduced different methods of mapping DBS effects to determine sweetspots. While having a direct impact on surgical targeting and postoperative programming in DBS, these methods so far have not been investigated in ground-truth data.
Materials & Methods This study investigated five previously published DBS mapping methods regarding their potential to correctly identify a ground-truth sweetspot. Methods were investigated in silico in eight different use-case scenarios, which incorporated different types of clinical data, noise, and differences in underlying neuroanatomy. Dice-coefficients were calculated to determine the overlap between identified sweetspots and the ground-truth. Additionally, out-of-sample predictive capabilities were assessed using the amount of explained variance R2.
Results The five investigated methods resulted in highly variable sweetspots. Methods based on voxel-wise statistics against average outcomes showed the best performance overall. While predictive capabilities were high, even in the best of cases Dice-coefficients remained limited to values around 0.5, highlighting the overall limitations of sweetspot identification.
Conclusions This study highlights the strengths and limitations of current approaches to DBS sweetspot mapping. Those limitations need to be taken into account when considering the clinical implications. All future approaches should be investigated in silico before being applied to clinical data.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
There was no external Funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No ethics vote required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: This study received no external funding.
Authorship Statement: TAD, JCB, JNPS, HJ & MTB developed the research design. TAD was responsible for data acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. TAD drafted the manuscript. JCB, JNPS, HJ, HT, VVV, HSD & MTB critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved the submitted version of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interests: There were no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript. Full disclosures are included for each author in the respective form.
Data Availability
All data and scripts of this in silico trial can be made available upon request.
