MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cortico‐cortical connectivity of the human mid‐dorsolateral frontal cortex and its modulation by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

2001· article· en· W1985165905 on OpenAlexafffund
Tomáš Paus, Manuel A. Castro‐Alamancos, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceDorsolateral prefrontal cortexPsychologyStimulationModulation (music)Anterior cingulate cortexCortex (anatomy)Prefrontal cortexCognitionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modulation of cortico-cortical connectivity in specific neural circuits might underlie some of the behavioural effects observed following repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the human frontal cortex. This possibility was tested by applying rTMS to the left mid-dorsolateral frontal cortex (MDL-FC) and subsequently measuring functional connectivity of this region with positron emission tomography (PET) and TMS. The results showed a strong rTMS-related modulation of brain activity in the fronto-cingulate circuit. These results were confirmed in a parallel experiment in the rat using electrical stimulation and field-potential recordings. Future studies are needed to provide a direct link between the rTMS-induced modulation of cortical connectivity and its effects on specific behaviours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations363
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207