Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- psychiatric_neurosurgery [2025/06/27 06:20] – administrador
+++ psychiatric_neurosurgery [2025/06/27 06:25] (current) – administrador
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 .1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.021. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30453110.
 )).
+===== Reviews =====
+In a Review article
+Torres Díaz et al.
+from Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid
+published in the Journal [[Brain Sciences]]
+a comprehensive review of recent advances in psychiatric neurosurgery, particularly neurotechnologies (DBS, lesion-based procedures), connectomic targeting, AI‑assisted planning, closed‑loop systems, and wearable minimally invasive devices, while examining mechanisms and ethical implications.
+They assert that psychiatric neurosurgery is transitioning toward "connectomic precision" with AI‑integrated, minimally invasive neuromodulation approaches. They emphasize the need for rigorous clinical validation and robust ethical safeguards to ensure patient autonomy and safety
+((Torres Díaz CV, Navas García M, Pulido Rivas P, Lara Almunia M, Fernández Alén JA. Shaping the Future of Psychiatric Neurosurgery: From Connectomic Precision to Technological Integration. Brain Sci. 2025 Jun 16;15(6):647. doi: 10.3390/brainsci15060647. PMID: 40563817.)).
+----
+=== Content Accuracy & Depth ===
+  * Mechanistic claims (DBS effect on synaptic plasticity/network-level modulation) are accurate, but no novel pathways or new preclinical data are cited.
+  * Connectomic targeting is correctly described as emerging, but the article lacks details on specific circuits or validated outcomes.
+  * The section on AI for surgical planning lacks performance data or validation trials.
+  * References to wearable and closed-loop systems are superficial, with no device specs or trial evidence presented.
+=== Tone & Structure ===
+  * Language is promotional (“profound transformation”, “emerging field”) without sufficient critical analysis.
+  * Structure is disorganized—ethical topics are interspersed with tech discussions without thematic cohesion.
+=== Utility to Practicing Neurosurgeons ===
+  * Broad thematic update but lacks actionable content—no target selection criteria, no procedural techniques, and no clinical protocols.
+  * Ethical insights are generic—no model consent templates, outcome tracking recommendations, or regulatory comparisons.
+=== Weaknesses ===
+  - Overly conceptual and vague.
+  - Lacks detailed or validated data supporting AI or connectomic claims.
+  - No statistical outcomes or RCTs cited.
+  - Not useful as a clinical guide.
+==== Overall Verdict ====
+A *marketecture-style* overview emphasizing promise over evidence. Limited use for neurosurgeons seeking practical guidance.
+**Takeaway for Neurosurgeons:**
+Awareness of trends is useful, but clinical adoption requires data. Seek better-grounded sources before changing practice.
+**Bottom Line:**
+Trendy, concept-heavy, and clinically thin. Proceed with caution.
+**Rating:** 4/10
+**Article Title:** Shaping the Future of Psychiatric Neurosurgery: From Connectomic Precision to Technological Integration
+**Citation:** Cristina V Torres Díaz et al. //Brain Sci.// 2025 Jun 16;15(6):647. doi:10.3390/brainsci15060647. PMID: 40563817
+**Corresponding Author Email:** [cristinavictoria.torres@salud.madrid.org](mailto:cristinavictoria.torres@salud.madrid.org)