An Evaluation of KELVIN, an Artificial Intelligence Platform, as an Objective Assessment of the MDS UPDRS Part III

BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease severity is typically measured using the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (MDS-UPDRS). While training for this scale exists, users may vary in how they score a patient with the consequence of intra-rater and inter-rater variability. OBJECTIVE: In this study we explored the consistency of an artificial intelligence platform compared with traditional clinical scoring in the assessment of motor severity in PD. METHODS: Twenty-two PD patients underwent simultaneous MDS-UPDRS scoring by two experienced MDS-UPDRS raters and the two sets of accompanying video footage were also scored by an artificial intelligence video analysis platform known as KELVIN. RESULTS: KELVIN was able to produce a summary score for 7 MDS-UPDRS part 3 items with good inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) 0.80 in the OFF-medication state, ICC 0.73 in the ON-medication state). Clinician scores had exceptionally high levels of inter-rater reliability in both the OFF (0.99) and ON (0.94) medication conditions (possibly reflecting the highly experienced team). There was an ICC of 0.84 in the OFF-medication state and 0.31 in the ON-medication state between the mean Clinician and mean Kelvin scores for the equivalent 7 motor items, possibly due to dyskinesia impacting on the KELVIN scores. CONCLUSION: We conclude that KELVIN may prove useful in the capture and scoring of multiple items of MDS-UPDRS part 3 with levels of consistency not far short of that achieved by experienced MDS-UPDRS clinical raters, and is worthy of further investigation

Accuracy, precision, and safety of stereotactic, frame-based, intraoperative MRI-guided and MRI-verified deep brain stimulation in 650 consecutive procedures

OBJECTIVE: Suboptimal lead placement is one of the most common indications for deep brain stimulation (DBS) revision procedures. Confirming lead placement in relation to the visible anatomical target with dedicated stereotactic imaging before terminating the procedure can mitigate this risk. In this study, the authors examined the accuracy, precision, and safety of intraoperative MRI (iMRI) to both guide and verify lead placement during frame-based stereotactic surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 650 consecutive DBS procedures for targeting accuracy, precision, and perioperative complications was performed. Frame-based lead placement took place in an operating room equipped with an MRI machine using stereotactic images to verify lead placement before removing the stereotactic frame. Immediate lead relocation was performed when necessary. Systematic analysis of the targeting error was calculated. RESULTS: Verification of 1201 DBS leads with stereotactic MRI was performed in 643 procedures and with stereotactic CT in 7. The mean ± SD of the final targeting error was 0.9 ± 0.3 mm (range 0.1-2.3 mm). Anatomically acceptable lead placement was achieved with a single brain pass for 97% (n = 1164) of leads; immediate intraoperative relocation was performed in 37 leads (3%) to obtain satisfactory anatomical placement. General anesthesia was used in 91% (n = 593) of the procedures. Hemorrhage was noted after 4 procedures (0.6%); 3 patients (0.4% of procedures) presented with transient neurological symptoms, and 1 experienced delayed cognitive decline. Two bleeds coincided with immediate relocation (2 of 37 leads, 5.4%), which contrasts with hemorrhage in 2 (0.2%) of 1164 leads implanted on the first pass (p = 0.0058). Three patients had transient seizures in the postoperative period. The seizures coincided with hemorrhage in 2 of these patients and with immediate lead relocation in the other. There were 21 infections (3.2% of procedures, 1.5% in 3 months) leading to hardware removal. Delayed (> 3 months) retargeting of 6 leads (0.5%) in 4 patients (0.6% of procedures) was performed because of suboptimal stimulation benefit. There were no MRI-related complications, no permanent motor deficits, and no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest series reporting the use of iMRI to guide and verify lead location during DBS surgery. It demonstrates a high level of accuracy, precision, and safety. Significantly higher hemorrhage was encountered when multiple brain passes were required for lead implantation, although none led to permanent deficit. Meticulous audit and calibration can improve precision and maximize safety

Globus pallidal deep brain stimulation for Tourette syndrome:Effects on cognitive function

INTRODUCTION: In a double-blind randomized crossover trial, we previously established that bilateral deep brain stimulation of the anteromedial globus pallidus internus (GPiam-DBS) is effective in significantly reducing tic severity in patients with refractory Tourette syndrome (TS). Here, we report the effects of bilateral GPiam-DBS on cognitive function in 11 of the 13 patients who had participated in our double-blind cross-over trial of GPi-DBS. METHODS: Patients were assessed at baseline (4 weeks prior to surgery) and at the end of each of the three-month blinded periods, with stimulation either ON or OFF. The patients were evaluated on tests of memory (California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II); Corsi blocks; Short Recognition Memory for Faces), executive function (D-KEFS Stroop color-word interference, verbal fluency, Trail-making test, Hayling Sentence Completion test), and attention (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, Numbers and Letters Test). RESULTS: GPiam-DBS did not produce any significant change in global cognition. Relative to pre-operative baseline assessment verbal episodic memory on the CVLT-II and set-shifting on the Trail-making Test were improved with DBS OFF. Performance on the cognitive tests were not different with DBS ON versus DBS OFF. GPiam-DBS did not alter aspects of cognition that are impaired in TS such as inhibition on the Stroop interference task or the Hayling Sentence Completion test. CONCLUSIONS: This study extends previous findings providing data showing that GPiam-DBS does not adversely affect cognitive domains such as memory, executive function, verbal fluency, attention, psychomotor speed, and information processing. These results indicate that GPiam-DBS does not produce any cognitive deficits in TS