MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155045386 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.575154

Displaying EEG data for neurosurgical guidance

2002· article· en· W2155045386 on OpenAlexaff
B. L. K. Davey, Marie‐Claude Asselin, David MacDonald, Jean Gotman, T.M. Peters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsElectroencephalographyNeurosurgeryComputer scienceScalpComputer visionEpilepsyArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsRadiologyMedicineNeuroscienceSurgeryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-guided neurosurgery (IGNS) in which anatomical images generated from patient MRI or CT scans provide surgical guidance, is now routinely employed in numerous institutions. However, IGNS systems generally lack the ability to display functional data, a significant shortcoming for many types of procedure. We have enhanced our IGNS system allowing the surgeon to display and interact with patient electroencephalography (EEG) data in the operating room. The surgeon can: determine 3D electrode locations; display electrode locations with respect to the underlying 3D patient anatomy obtained from MRI; visualize the EEG potential field map interpolated onto the scalp; graphically analyze the time evolution of these maps; and view the location of equivalent sources within the patient cerebral structures. Display of EEG information is clinically significant in cases involving the surgical treatment of epilepsy, where EEG data plays an important role in characterizing and localizing epileptic foci, both preoperatively and during the operation.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.005

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207