Electroencephalography in Psychiatric Surgery: Past Use and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last two decades have seen a re-emergence of surgery for intractable psychiatric disease, in large part due to increased use of deep brain stimulation. The development of more precise, image-guided, less invasive interventions has improved the safety of these procedures, even though the relative merits of modulation at various targets remain under investigation. With an increase in the number and type of interventions for modulating mood/anxiety circuits, the need for biomarkers to guide surgeries and predict treatment response is as critical as ever. Electroencephalography (EEG) has a long history in clinical neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and functional neurosurgery, but has limited prior usage in psychiatric surgery. MEDLINE, Embase, and Psyc-INFO searches on the use of EEG in guiding psychiatric surgery yielded 611 articles, which were screened for relevance and quality. We synthesized three important themes. First, considerable evidence supports EEG as a biomarker for response to various surgical and non-surgical therapies, but large-scale investigations are lacking. Second, intraoperative EEG is likely more valuable than surface EEG for guiding target selection, but comes at the cost of greater invasiveness. Finally, EEG may be a promising tool for objective functional feedback in developing "closed-loop" psychosurgeries, but more systematic investigations are required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".