MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109484468 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2000.901431

KLT analysis of brain potential maps during pain

2002· article· en· W2109484468 on OpenAlexaff
F. Brauer, G. Stroink, John F. Connolly, Patrick J. McGrath, G. Allen Finley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyMismatch negativityOddball paradigmEigenfunctionEvent-related potentialAudiologyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceNeurosciencePhysicsEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of pain on event related potentials was analyzed with spatial Karhunen-Loeve Transforms (KLT) of maps from 54-lead EEG recordings. The recordings were obtained using an auditory oddball paradigm, during pain and no-pain conditions. Group eigenfunctions were calculated from the mismatch negativity (MMN) responses of twelve subjects. The individual data for pain and no-pain conditions, respectively, were fitted with these group eigenfunctions across the conditions. In seven of the twelve subjects, the resulting fitting error was larger when pain eigenfunctions were fitted to control data rather than to pain data. This suggests that spatial features of the potential maps might be used as a means for differentiating between pain and no-pain conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207