MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759480366 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2017.09.013

Computational human head models of tDCS: Influence of brain atrophy on current density distribution

2017· article· en· W2759480366 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shirin Mahdavi, Farzad Towhidkhah

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingGenentechNational Institutes of HealthServierU.S. Department of DefenseEli Lilly and CompanyLundbeckfondenEisaiNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCognitive Sciences and Technologies CouncilNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationAlzheimer's AssociationFujirebio USPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbRocheMerckAlzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationIXICOTakeda Pharmaceutical CompanyAbbVieFujirebio EuropeFoundation for the National Institutes of HealthGE HealthcareAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale Diagnostics
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationAtrophyNeurosciencePsychologyCognitionCerebral cortexCognitive impairmentHuman brainStimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations78
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207