MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501483506 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2016.2591827

Classification and Prediction of Clinical Improvement in Deep Brain Stimulation From Intraoperative Microelectrode Recordings

2016· article· en· W2501483506 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyriaki Kostoglou, Konstantinos P. Michmizos, Pantelis Stathis, Damianos E. Sakas, Konstantina S. Nikita, Georgios D. Mitsis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationSubthalamic nucleusMicroelectrodeParkinson's diseaseRating scaleMotor symptomsMedicineNeuroscienceStimulationLocal field potentialElectrophysiologyDiseasePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a random forest (RF) classification and regression technique to predict, intraoperatively, the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) improvement after deep brain stimulation (DBS). We hypothesized that a data-informed combination of features extracted from intraoperative microelectrode recordings (MERs) can predict the motor improvement of Parkinson's disease patients undergoing DBS surgery. We modified the employed RFs to account for unbalanced datasets and multiple observations per patient, and showed, for the first time, that only five neurophysiologically interpretable MER signal features are sufficient for predicting UPDRS improvement. This finding suggests that subthalamic nucleus (STN) electrophysiological signal characteristics are strongly correlated to the extent of motor behavior improvement observed in STN-DBS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207