NeuroMEMS: Neural Probe Microtechnologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural probe technologies have already had a significant positive effect on our understanding of the brain by revealing the functioning of networks of biological neurons. Probes are implanted in different areas of the brain to record and/or stimulate specific sites in the brain. Neural probes are currently used in many clinical settings for diagnosis of brain diseases such as seizers, epilepsy, migraine, Alzheimer's, and dementia. We find these devices assisting paralyzed patients by allowing them to operate computers or robots using their neural activity. In recent years, probe technologies were assisted by rapid advancements in microfabrication and microelectronic technologies and thus are enabling highly functional and robust neural probes which are opening new and exciting avenues in neural sciences and brain machine interfaces. With a wide variety of probes that have been designed, fabricated, and tested to date, this review aims to provide an overview of the advances and recent progress in the microfabrication techniques of neural probes. In addition, we aim to highlight the challenges faced in developing and implementing ultralong multi-site recording probes that are needed to monitor neural activity from deeper regions in the brain. Finally, we review techniques that can improve the biocompatibility of the neural probes to minimize the immune response and encourage neural growth around the electrodes for long term implantation studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".