MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Studies of human motor physiology with transcranial magnetic stimulation

2000· review· en· W2058083401 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceMotor cortexSilent periodScalpStimulus (psychology)NeuroplasticityPsychologyStimulationEvoked potentialDystoniaMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a safe, noninvasive, and painless way to stimulate the human motor cortex in behaving human subjects. When it is applied as a single-pulse, measurements such as central conduction time, motor threshold, silent-period duration, recruitment curve, and mapping of muscle representation can be determined. Paired-pulse TMS is a useful way to examine cortical excitability. Single and paired-pulse TMS have been applied to study plasticity following amputation and cortical excitability in patients with dystonia. Another form of TMS is repetitive TMS (rTMS), with stimuli delivered repeatedly to a single scalp site. High-frequency rTMS can be used to transiently inactivate different cortical areas to study their functions. rTMS can also modulate cortical excitability. At stimulus frequencies higher than 5 Hz, rTMS increases cortical excitability, and stimulation around 1 Hz reduces cortical excitability. Modulation of cortical excitability by rTMS has therapeutic potential in psychiatric and neurological disorders.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.234 · 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