MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995230584 · doi:10.1002/hbm.20192

Intensity modulation of TMS‐induced cortical excitation: Primary motor cortex

2005· article· en· W1995230584 on OpenAlexaff
Peter T. Fox, Shalini Narayana, Nitin Tandon, Sarabeth P. Fox, Hugo Sandoval, Peter Kochunov, Charles Capaday, Jack L. Lancaster

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationPrimary motor cortexMotor cortexIntensity (physics)Stimulus (psychology)StimulationHaemodynamic responseHemodynamicsEvoked potentialNuclear magnetic resonanceNeurosciencePsychologyPhysicsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineHeart rateBlood pressureOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intensity dependence of the local and remote effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on human motor cortex was characterized using positron-emission tomography (PET) measurements of regional blood flow (BF) and concurrent electromyographic (EMG) measurements of the motor-evoked potential (MEP). Twelve normal volunteers were studied by applying 3 Hz TMS to the hand region of primary motor cortex (M1(hand)). Three stimulation intensities were used: 75%, 100%, and 125% of the motor threshold (MT). MEP amplitude increased nonlinearly with increasing stimulus intensity. The rate of rise in MEP amplitude was greater above MT than below. The hemodynamic response in M1(hand) was an increase in BF. Hemodynamic variables quantified for M1(hand) included value-normalized counts (VNC), intensity (z-score), and extent (mm(3)). All three hemodynamic response variables increased nonlinearly with stimulus intensity, closely mirroring the MEP intensity-response function. VNC was the hemodynamic response variable which showed the most significant effect of TMS intensity. VNC correlated strongly with MEP amplitude, both within and between subjects. Remote regions showed varying patterns of intensity response, which we interpret as reflecting varying levels of neuronal excitability and/or functional coupling in the conditions studied.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench 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

Citations68
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207