MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING FOR INTRAOPERATIVE LOCALIZATION OF SUBTHALAMIC NUCLEUS DURING DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION SURGERY

2018· article· en· W2900905595 on OpenAlexaff
Mahsa Khosravi, S. Farokh Atashzar, Greydon Gilmore, Mandar Jog, Rajni V. Patel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubthalamic nucleusDeep brain stimulationElectrophysiologyLocal field potentialMicroelectrodeStimulationNeuroscienceMotor symptomsNeurophysiologyParkinson's diseaseComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMedicineElectrodePsychologyDiseasePathologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a novel technique is proposed for localization of Subthalamic Nucleus (STN) during deep brain stimulation (DBS) Surgery. DBS surgery is performed on individuals living with Parkinson's disease (PD) to permanently implant stimulation electrodes for managing some motor symptoms of PD. The most challenging part of this surgery is to accurately place the electrodes inside the STN. Commonly, microelectrode recordings (MERs) are interpreted by the surgical team intraoperatively to estimate the location of electrodes and detect the borders of the STN. In this work, we aim to automate the process of localizing the STN using a machine learning technique (trained based on the electrophysiological signals that we have collected during 20 surgeries). The proposed approach is capable of detecting the dorsal borders of the STN during the procedure with high accuracy (85%), and outperforms the current state-of-the-art approach for this application.

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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→