Model-driven therapeutic treatment of neurological disorders: reshaping brain rhythms with neuromodulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric stimulation has been investigated for several decades to treat, with various degrees of success, a broad spectrum of neurological disorders. Historically, the development of these methods has been largely empirical but has led to a remarkably efficient, yet invasive treatment: deep brain stimulation (DBS). However, the efficiency of DBS is limited by our lack of understanding of the underlying physiological mechanisms and by the complex relationship existing between brain processing and behaviour. Biophysical modelling of brain activity, describing multi-scale spatio-temporal patterns of neuronal activity using a mathematical model and taking into account the physical properties of brain tissue, represents one way to fill this gap. In this review, we illustrate how biophysical modelling is beginning to emerge as a driving force orienting the development of innovative brain stimulation methods that may move DBS forward. We present examples of modelling works that have provided fruitful insights in regards to DBS underlying mechanisms, and others that also suggest potential improvements for this neurosurgical procedure. The reviewed literature emphasizes that biophysical modelling is a valuable tool to assist a rational development of electrical and/or magnetic brain stimulation methods tailored to both the disease and the patient's characteristics.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".