Quantifying axonal responses in patient-specific models of subthalamic deep brain stimulation

Medical imaging has played a major role in defining the general anatomical targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapies. However, specifics on the underlying brain circuitry that is directly modulated by DBS electric fields remain relatively undefined. Detailed biophysical modeling of DBS prov...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2018-05, Vol.172, p.263-277
Hauptverfasser: Gunalan, Kabilar, Howell, Bryan, McIntyre, Cameron C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 277
container_issue
container_start_page 263
container_title NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)
container_volume 172
creator Gunalan, Kabilar
Howell, Bryan
McIntyre, Cameron C.
description Medical imaging has played a major role in defining the general anatomical targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapies. However, specifics on the underlying brain circuitry that is directly modulated by DBS electric fields remain relatively undefined. Detailed biophysical modeling of DBS provides an approach to quantify the theoretical responses to stimulation at the cellular level, and has established a key role for axonal activation in the therapeutic mechanisms of DBS. Estimates of DBS-induced axonal activation can then be coupled with advances in defining the structural connectome of the human brain to provide insight into the modulated brain circuitry and possible correlations with clinical outcomes. These pathway-activation models (PAMs) represent powerful tools for DBS research, but the theoretical predictions are highly dependent upon the underlying assumptions of the particular modeling strategy used to create the PAM. In general, three types of PAMs are used to estimate activation: 1) field-cable (FC) models, 2) driving force (DF) models, and 3) volume of tissue activated (VTA) models. FC models represent the “gold standard” for analysis but at the cost of extreme technical demands and computational resources. Consequently, DF and VTA PAMs, derived from simplified FC models, are typically used in clinical research studies, but the relative accuracy of these implementations is unknown. Therefore, we performed a head-to-head comparison of the different PAMs, specifically evaluating DBS of three different axonal pathways in the subthalamic region. The DF PAM was markedly more accurate than the VTA PAMs, but none of these simplified models were able to match the results of the patient-specific FC PAM across all pathways and combinations of stimulus parameters. These results highlight the limitations of using simplified predictors to estimate axonal stimulation and emphasize the need for novel algorithms that are both biophysically realistic and computationally simple.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.015
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5910209</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S105381191830017X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2025738174</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-6b508e8574cb3d7d27db27b7a28a8d0ab4de876339bc6d4b33c5771aa5d0abe83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkVtrFTEQxxex2It-BQn44ssec9lskhdBi1ahIIX2UUIus6c57CZrslvab28Op9bLizCQkPn_ZybzaxpE8IZg0r_bbSKsOYXJbGFDMZEbTGrwZ80JwYq3igv6fH_nrJWEqOPmtJQdxliRTr5ojqlijHSdOmm-X60mLmF4CHGLzH2KZkQZypxigYJCRLNZAsSlLTO4MASHpuRhLCgNqKx2uTWjmeqrB5iRzaY6yhKmday2FF82R4MZC7x6PM-am8-frs-_tJffLr6ef7hsHcdiaXvLsQTJRecs88JT4S0VVhgqjfTY2M6DFD1jyrred5Yxx4UgxvB9EiQ7a94f6s6rncC7OnA2o55z3VB-0MkE_Xcmhlu9TXeaK4IpVrXA28cCOf1YoSx6CsXBOJoIaS2aKKm4FIL1VfrmH-kurbnurWiKKRdMEtFVlTyoXE6lZBiehiFY7xnqnf7NUO8Zakxq8Gp9_ednnoy_oFXBx4OgcoC7AFkXVxk58CGDW7RP4f9dfgIjcrW0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2025738174</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantifying axonal responses in patient-specific models of subthalamic deep brain stimulation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Gunalan, Kabilar ; Howell, Bryan ; McIntyre, Cameron C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gunalan, Kabilar ; Howell, Bryan ; McIntyre, Cameron C.</creatorcontrib><description>Medical imaging has played a major role in defining the general anatomical targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapies. However, specifics on the underlying brain circuitry that is directly modulated by DBS electric fields remain relatively undefined. Detailed biophysical modeling of DBS provides an approach to quantify the theoretical responses to stimulation at the cellular level, and has established a key role for axonal activation in the therapeutic mechanisms of DBS. Estimates of DBS-induced axonal activation can then be coupled with advances in defining the structural connectome of the human brain to provide insight into the modulated brain circuitry and possible correlations with clinical outcomes. These pathway-activation models (PAMs) represent powerful tools for DBS research, but the theoretical predictions are highly dependent upon the underlying assumptions of the particular modeling strategy used to create the PAM. In general, three types of PAMs are used to estimate activation: 1) field-cable (FC) models, 2) driving force (DF) models, and 3) volume of tissue activated (VTA) models. FC models represent the “gold standard” for analysis but at the cost of extreme technical demands and computational resources. Consequently, DF and VTA PAMs, derived from simplified FC models, are typically used in clinical research studies, but the relative accuracy of these implementations is unknown. Therefore, we performed a head-to-head comparison of the different PAMs, specifically evaluating DBS of three different axonal pathways in the subthalamic region. The DF PAM was markedly more accurate than the VTA PAMs, but none of these simplified models were able to match the results of the patient-specific FC PAM across all pathways and combinations of stimulus parameters. These results highlight the limitations of using simplified predictors to estimate axonal stimulation and emphasize the need for novel algorithms that are both biophysically realistic and computationally simple.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-8119</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1095-9572</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9572</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.015</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29331449</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Axons - physiology ; Brain Mapping - methods ; Brain research ; Computational model ; Computational neuroscience ; Computer Simulation ; Data collection ; Deep Brain Stimulation ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Estimation ; Humans ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Models, Neurological ; Neuroimaging ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Parkinson Disease - therapy ; Parkinson's disease ; Pathway activation ; Stimulation thresholds ; Studies ; Subthalamic nucleus ; Subthalamic Nucleus - physiology ; Tractography</subject><ispartof>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2018-05, Vol.172, p.263-277</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited May 15, 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-6b508e8574cb3d7d27db27b7a28a8d0ab4de876339bc6d4b33c5771aa5d0abe83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-6b508e8574cb3d7d27db27b7a28a8d0ab4de876339bc6d4b33c5771aa5d0abe83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191830017X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29331449$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gunalan, Kabilar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howell, Bryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntyre, Cameron C.</creatorcontrib><title>Quantifying axonal responses in patient-specific models of subthalamic deep brain stimulation</title><title>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</title><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><description>Medical imaging has played a major role in defining the general anatomical targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapies. However, specifics on the underlying brain circuitry that is directly modulated by DBS electric fields remain relatively undefined. Detailed biophysical modeling of DBS provides an approach to quantify the theoretical responses to stimulation at the cellular level, and has established a key role for axonal activation in the therapeutic mechanisms of DBS. Estimates of DBS-induced axonal activation can then be coupled with advances in defining the structural connectome of the human brain to provide insight into the modulated brain circuitry and possible correlations with clinical outcomes. These pathway-activation models (PAMs) represent powerful tools for DBS research, but the theoretical predictions are highly dependent upon the underlying assumptions of the particular modeling strategy used to create the PAM. In general, three types of PAMs are used to estimate activation: 1) field-cable (FC) models, 2) driving force (DF) models, and 3) volume of tissue activated (VTA) models. FC models represent the “gold standard” for analysis but at the cost of extreme technical demands and computational resources. Consequently, DF and VTA PAMs, derived from simplified FC models, are typically used in clinical research studies, but the relative accuracy of these implementations is unknown. Therefore, we performed a head-to-head comparison of the different PAMs, specifically evaluating DBS of three different axonal pathways in the subthalamic region. The DF PAM was markedly more accurate than the VTA PAMs, but none of these simplified models were able to match the results of the patient-specific FC PAM across all pathways and combinations of stimulus parameters. These results highlight the limitations of using simplified predictors to estimate axonal stimulation and emphasize the need for novel algorithms that are both biophysically realistic and computationally simple.</description><subject>Axons - physiology</subject><subject>Brain Mapping - methods</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Computational model</subject><subject>Computational neuroscience</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Deep Brain Stimulation</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Models, Neurological</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Parkinson Disease - therapy</subject><subject>Parkinson's disease</subject><subject>Pathway activation</subject><subject>Stimulation thresholds</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Subthalamic nucleus</subject><subject>Subthalamic Nucleus - physiology</subject><subject>Tractography</subject><issn>1053-8119</issn><issn>1095-9572</issn><issn>1095-9572</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkVtrFTEQxxex2It-BQn44ssec9lskhdBi1ahIIX2UUIus6c57CZrslvab28Op9bLizCQkPn_ZybzaxpE8IZg0r_bbSKsOYXJbGFDMZEbTGrwZ80JwYq3igv6fH_nrJWEqOPmtJQdxliRTr5ojqlijHSdOmm-X60mLmF4CHGLzH2KZkQZypxigYJCRLNZAsSlLTO4MASHpuRhLCgNqKx2uTWjmeqrB5iRzaY6yhKmday2FF82R4MZC7x6PM-am8-frs-_tJffLr6ef7hsHcdiaXvLsQTJRecs88JT4S0VVhgqjfTY2M6DFD1jyrred5Yxx4UgxvB9EiQ7a94f6s6rncC7OnA2o55z3VB-0MkE_Xcmhlu9TXeaK4IpVrXA28cCOf1YoSx6CsXBOJoIaS2aKKm4FIL1VfrmH-kurbnurWiKKRdMEtFVlTyoXE6lZBiehiFY7xnqnf7NUO8Zakxq8Gp9_ednnoy_oFXBx4OgcoC7AFkXVxk58CGDW7RP4f9dfgIjcrW0</recordid><startdate>20180515</startdate><enddate>20180515</enddate><creator>Gunalan, Kabilar</creator><creator>Howell, Bryan</creator><creator>McIntyre, Cameron C.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180515</creationdate><title>Quantifying axonal responses in patient-specific models of subthalamic deep brain stimulation</title><author>Gunalan, Kabilar ; Howell, Bryan ; McIntyre, Cameron C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c507t-6b508e8574cb3d7d27db27b7a28a8d0ab4de876339bc6d4b33c5771aa5d0abe83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Axons - physiology</topic><topic>Brain Mapping - methods</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Computational model</topic><topic>Computational neuroscience</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Deep Brain Stimulation</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Models, Neurological</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Parkinson Disease - therapy</topic><topic>Parkinson's disease</topic><topic>Pathway activation</topic><topic>Stimulation thresholds</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Subthalamic nucleus</topic><topic>Subthalamic Nucleus - physiology</topic><topic>Tractography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gunalan, Kabilar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howell, Bryan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McIntyre, Cameron C.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gunalan, Kabilar</au><au>Howell, Bryan</au><au>McIntyre, Cameron C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantifying axonal responses in patient-specific models of subthalamic deep brain stimulation</atitle><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><date>2018-05-15</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>172</volume><spage>263</spage><epage>277</epage><pages>263-277</pages><issn>1053-8119</issn><issn>1095-9572</issn><eissn>1095-9572</eissn><abstract>Medical imaging has played a major role in defining the general anatomical targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapies. However, specifics on the underlying brain circuitry that is directly modulated by DBS electric fields remain relatively undefined. Detailed biophysical modeling of DBS provides an approach to quantify the theoretical responses to stimulation at the cellular level, and has established a key role for axonal activation in the therapeutic mechanisms of DBS. Estimates of DBS-induced axonal activation can then be coupled with advances in defining the structural connectome of the human brain to provide insight into the modulated brain circuitry and possible correlations with clinical outcomes. These pathway-activation models (PAMs) represent powerful tools for DBS research, but the theoretical predictions are highly dependent upon the underlying assumptions of the particular modeling strategy used to create the PAM. In general, three types of PAMs are used to estimate activation: 1) field-cable (FC) models, 2) driving force (DF) models, and 3) volume of tissue activated (VTA) models. FC models represent the “gold standard” for analysis but at the cost of extreme technical demands and computational resources. Consequently, DF and VTA PAMs, derived from simplified FC models, are typically used in clinical research studies, but the relative accuracy of these implementations is unknown. Therefore, we performed a head-to-head comparison of the different PAMs, specifically evaluating DBS of three different axonal pathways in the subthalamic region. The DF PAM was markedly more accurate than the VTA PAMs, but none of these simplified models were able to match the results of the patient-specific FC PAM across all pathways and combinations of stimulus parameters. These results highlight the limitations of using simplified predictors to estimate axonal stimulation and emphasize the need for novel algorithms that are both biophysically realistic and computationally simple.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>29331449</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.015</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-8119
ispartof NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2018-05, Vol.172, p.263-277
issn 1053-8119
1095-9572
1095-9572
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5910209
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Axons - physiology
Brain Mapping - methods
Brain research
Computational model
Computational neuroscience
Computer Simulation
Data collection
Deep Brain Stimulation
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Estimation
Humans
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods
Models, Neurological
Neuroimaging
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Parkinson Disease - therapy
Parkinson's disease
Pathway activation
Stimulation thresholds
Studies
Subthalamic nucleus
Subthalamic Nucleus - physiology
Tractography
title Quantifying axonal responses in patient-specific models of subthalamic deep brain stimulation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T12%3A46%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantifying%20axonal%20responses%20in%20patient-specific%20models%20of%20subthalamic%20deep%20brain%20stimulation&rft.jtitle=NeuroImage%20(Orlando,%20Fla.)&rft.au=Gunalan,%20Kabilar&rft.date=2018-05-15&rft.volume=172&rft.spage=263&rft.epage=277&rft.pages=263-277&rft.issn=1053-8119&rft.eissn=1095-9572&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.01.015&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2025738174%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2025738174&rft_id=info:pmid/29331449&rft_els_id=S105381191830017X&rfr_iscdi=true