Matters arising: bridging predictive algorithms and clinical practice in DBS contact selection

Optimal contact selection is a critical determinant of deep brain stimulation (DBS) outcome in Parkinson’s disease, yet it remains one of the most challenging steps in clinical practice. When the optimal stimulation contact is identified directly, precise electrical parameters can be applied without exhaustive testing at every individual electrode contact, saving clinical time and reducing patient burden 1 . Conversely, suboptimal contact selection carries consequences that extend well beyond inefficiency: when the therapeutic target is missed, side effects become more likely. In search of adequate effect, clinicians are then compelled to explore a wide range of contacts and parameter combinations, exposing patients to repeated adjustments, conflicting sensations, and the confusion and overload that comes with prolonged and inconclusive programming trajectories. Neural biomarkers, specifically local field potentials (LFPs) recorded from chronically implanted DBS devices, offer a promising route toward network-guided, patient-specific programming. By revealing the spatial distribution of pathological beta band ( ± 13–35 Hz) activity, LFPs could enable direct identification of the optimal contact and, ultimately, support adaptive DBS systems that continuously adjust stimulation to the patient’s momentary neural state. Realizing this potential, however, requires that LFP-based contact selection algorithms are not only accurate but robust and reproducible across clinicians and centers, a standard that has yet to be rigorously established.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Parkinson s Disease
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-026-01496-4
Primary Topic
Neurological disorders and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Matters arising: bridging predictive algorithms and clinical practice in DBS contact selection

Deborah Hubers, Annabel van der Weide, Maarten Bot, Bart J. Keulen et al.
npj Parkinson s Disease
Neurological disorders and treatments
article

Matters arising: bridging predictive algorithms and clinical practice in DBS contact selection

Deborah Hubers, Annabel van der Weide, Maarten Bot, Bart J. Keulen, Mariëlle J. Stam, Yarit Wiggerts, Martijn G.J. de Neeling, Bernadette C. M. van Wijk, Rob M. A. de Bie, Rick Schuurman, Martijn Beudel
article en

Abstract

Optimal contact selection is a critical determinant of deep brain stimulation (DBS) outcome in Parkinson’s disease, yet it remains one of the most challenging steps in clinical practice. When the optimal stimulation contact is identified directly, precise electrical parameters can be applied without exhaustive testing at every individual electrode contact, saving clinical time and reducing patient burden 1 . Conversely, suboptimal contact selection carries consequences that extend well beyond inefficiency: when the therapeutic target is missed, side effects become more likely. In search of adequate effect, clinicians are then compelled to explore a wide range of contacts and parameter combinations, exposing patients to repeated adjustments, conflicting sensations, and the confusion and overload that comes with prolonged and inconclusive programming trajectories. Neural biomarkers, specifically local field potentials (LFPs) recorded from chronically implanted DBS devices, offer a promising route toward network-guided, patient-specific programming. By revealing the spatial distribution of pathological beta band ( ± 13–35 Hz) activity, LFPs could enable direct identification of the optimal contact and, ultimately, support adaptive DBS systems that continuously adjust stimulation to the patient’s momentary neural state. Realizing this potential, however, requires that LFP-based contact selection algorithms are not only accurate but robust and reproducible across clinicians and centers, a standard that has yet to be rigorously established.

npj Parkinson s DiseaseVol. 12(1)
Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Boston Scientific Corporation, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, ZonMw, Stichting ParkinsonFonds
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Neurological disorders and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.