IFCN-endorsed practical guidelines for clinical magnetoencephalography (MEG)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) records weak magnetic fields outside the human head and thereby provides millisecond-accurate information about neuronal currents supporting human brain function. MEG and electroencephalography (EEG) are closely related complementary methods and should be interpreted together whenever possible. This manuscript covers the basic physical and physiological principles of MEG and discusses the main aspects of state-of-the-art MEG data analysis. We provide guidelines for best practices of patient preparation, stimulus presentation, MEG data collection and analysis, as well as for MEG interpretation in routine clinical examinations. In 2017, about 200 whole-scalp MEG devices were in operation worldwide, many of them located in clinical environments. Yet, the established clinical indications for MEG examinations remain few, mainly restricted to the diagnostics of epilepsy and to preoperative functional evaluation of neurosurgical patients. We are confident that the extensive ongoing basic MEG research indicates potential for the evaluation of neurological and psychiatric syndromes, developmental disorders, and the integrity of cortical brain networks after stroke. Basic and clinical research is, thus, paving way for new clinical applications to be identified by an increasing number of practitioners of MEG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it