MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600140718 · doi:10.1176/jnp.14.4.406

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

2002· review· en· W2600140718 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychiatry · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Brain stimulationNeuroplasticityPsychologyDeep transcranial magnetic stimulationFacilitationStimulationMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a new investigational technique used to explore various neural processes and treat a variety of neuropsychiatric illnesses. The most notable advantage of TMS is its ability to directly stimulate the cortex with little effect on intervening tissue. Single-pulse stimulation techniques can measure cortical inhibition, facilitation, connectivity, reactivity, and cortical plasticity, providing valuable insights into the cortical physiology. Repetitive TMS (rTMS) is currently being used to investigate cognitive processes and as a treatment tool in disorders such as depression and schizophrenia. Both TMS and rTMS are safe and well tolerated. The most serious side effect of high-frequency rTMS is seizures. TMS represents an exciting new frontier in neuroscience research, providing insights into the pathophysiology and treatment of various neuropsychiatric disorders.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.238 · 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