RESPONSIVE NEUROMODULATORS BASED ON ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS USED TO CONTROL SEIZURE-LIKE EVENTS IN A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF EPILEPSY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been noted for its potential to suppress epileptic seizures. To date, DBS has achieved mixed results as a therapeutic approach to seizure control. Using a computational model, we demonstrate that high-complexity, biologically-inspired responsive neuromodulation is superior to periodic forms of neuromodulation (responsive and non-responsive) such as those implemented in DBS, as well as neuromodulation using random and random repetitive-interval stimulation. We configured radial basis function (RBF) networks to generate outputs modeling interictal time series recorded from rodent hippocampal slices that were perfused with low Mg²⁺/high K⁺ solution. We then compared the performance of RBF-based interictal modulation, periodic biphasic-pulse modulation, random modulation and random repetitive modulation on a cognitive rhythm generator (CRG) model of spontaneous seizure-like events (SLEs), testing efficacy of SLE control. A statistically significant improvement in SLE mitigation for the RBF interictal modulation case versus the periodic and random cases was observed, suggesting that the use of biologically-inspired neuromodulators may achieve better results for the purpose of electrical control of seizures in a clinical setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".