Reliability of the motor evoked potentials elicited through magnetic stimulation at three sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) obtained from magnetic stimulation allow the measurement of the excitability of motor nerve cells. Although this technique is becoming widely used, its reliability has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of MEPs and evaluate their stability. DESIGN: Subjects received magnetic stimulation at 3 different sites: cranial, cervical, and peripheral. Three stimulations were given at each site. Stimulations were given under 4 conditions: eyes open or closed and with or without controlled mental activity. SETTING: The study was performed in a research laboratory setting. PARTICIPANTS: Nine healthy subjects (mean age = 21 years +/- 0.9), asymptomatic of any neural or musculoskeletal dysfunctions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Normalized peak-to-peak amplitude of MEPs at the opponens pollicis muscle. RESULTS: Intraclass correlations were high for all conditions (R > 0.90). The amplitude of the MEPs elicited from the transcranial site during the controlled mental activity condition was increased by 26.6% (P =.017). No other significant differences (P >.05) were obtained among the other conditions. CONCLUSION: Intraclass correlation results reveal that MEP measurements are highly reliable in a controlled environment. The increase of MEPs during the controlled mental activity condition could be attributed to an elevation of neural activity of different nonmotor areas of the brain increasing corticospinal excitability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".