Using bioimpedance spectroscopy parameters as real-time feedback during tDCS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploratory analysis is carried out to investigate the feasibility of using BioImpedance Spectroscopy (BIS) parameters, measured on scalp, as real-time feedback during Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). TDCS is shown to be a potential treatment for neurological disorders. However, this technique is not considered as a reliable clinical treatment, due to the lack of a measurable indicator of treatment efficacy. Although the voltage that is applied on the head is very simple to measure during a tDCS session, changes of voltage are difficult to interpret in terms of variables that affect clinical outcome. BIS parameters are considered as potential feedback parameters, because: 1) they are shown to be associated with the DC voltage applied on the head, 2) they are interpretable in terms of conductive and capacitive properties of head tissues, 3) physical interpretation of BIS measurements makes them prone to be adjusted by clinically controllable variables, 4) BIS parameters are measurable in a cost-effective and safe way and do not interfere with DC stimulation. This research indicates that a quadratic regression model can predict the DC voltage between anode and cathode based on parameters extracted from BIS measurements. These parameters are extracted by fitting the measured BIS spectra to an equivalent electrical circuit model. The effect of clinical tDCS variables on BIS parameters needs to be investigated in future works. This work suggests that BIS is a potential method to be used for monitoring a tDCS session in order to adjust, tailor, or personalize tDCS treatment protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".