MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143548123 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2008.4541232

Development of FMRI techniques for planning in functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease

2008· article· en· W2143548123 on OpenAlexaff
M. Mallar Chakravarty, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Scott Broadbent, Alan C. Evans, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThalamusSomatosensory systemFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceParkinson's diseaseMagnetic resonance imagingSensory systemDeep brain stimulationNeurosurgeryPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceDiseaseRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-operative neurosurgical planning often uses data from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify areas of eloquent cortex, such as the primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, to be spared during surgery. However, the in-vivo visualization of subcortical neurosurgical targets has typically involved the warping of subcortical atlases or T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging techniques to help define the anatomical borders. We propose a novel vibrotactile stimulation technique to activate the somatosensory pathway, and particularly the sensory thalamus. Experiments were executed on two MRI scanners (1.5T and 3.0T). A sensitivity analysis demonstrated that statistically significant functional activations of the sensory thalamus can be in achieved in clinically acceptable time (32 minutes at 1.5T and 12 minutes at 3.0T), thus enabling this technique to be used for pre-operative planning in patients.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→