MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2122752686 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6090172

Emerging technology for advancing the treatment of epilepsy using a dynamic control framework

2011· article· en· W2122752686 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Stanslaski, John Giftakis, Paul H. Stypulkowski, Dave Carlson, Pedram Afshar, Peng Cong, Timothy Denison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMedtronic (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpilepsyComputer scienceControl (management)Artificial intelligenceNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We briefly describe a dynamic control system framework for neuromodulation for epilepsy, with an emphasis on its practical challenges and the preliminary validation of key prototype technologies in a chronic animal model. The current state of neuromodulation can be viewed as a classical dynamic control framework such that the nervous system is the classical "plant", the neural stimulator is the controller/actuator, clinical observation, patient diaries and/or measured bio-markers are the sensor, and clinical judgment applied to these sensor inputs forms the state estimator. Technology can potentially address two main factors contributing to the performance limitations of existing systems: "observability," the ability to observe the state of the system from output measurements, and "controllability," the ability to drive the system to a desired state. In addition to improving sensors and actuator performance, methods and tools to better understand disease state dynamics and state estimation are also critical for improving therapy outcomes. We describe our preliminary validation of key "observability" and "controllability" technology blocks using an implanted research tool in an epilepsy disease model. This model allows for testing the key emerging technologies in a representative neural network of therapeutic importance. In the future, we believe these technologies might enable both first principles understanding of neural network behavior for optimizing therapy design, and provide a practical pathway towards clinical translation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→