MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970897407 · doi:10.1109/jtehm.2019.2937776

A Miniature Dual-Biomarker-Based Sensing and Conditioning Device for Closed-Loop DBS

2019· article· en· W2970897407 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mahboubeh Parastarfeizabadi, Abbas Z. Kouzani

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsLocal field potentialComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)AmplifierSensitivity (control systems)Closed loopClosing (real estate)Test benchElectronic engineeringNeuroscienceEmbedded systemEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a dual-biomarker-based neural sensing and conditioning device is proposed for closing the feedback loop in deep brain stimulation devices. The device explores both local field potentials (LFPs) and action potentials (APs) as measured biomarkers. It includes two channels, each having four main parts: (1) a pre-amplifier with built-in low-pass filter, (2) a ground shifting circuit, (3) an amplifier with low-pass function, and (4) a high-pass filter. The design specifications include miniature-size, light-weight, and 100 dB gain in the LFP and AP channels. This device has been validated through bench and in-vitro tests. The bench tests have been performed using different sinusoidal signals and pre-recorded neural signals. The in-vitro tests have been conducted in the saline solution that mimics the brain environment. The total weight of the device including a 3 V coin battery, and battery holder is 1.2 g. The diameter of the device is 11.2 mm. The device can be used to concurrently sense LFPs and APs for closing the feedback loop in closed-loop deep brain stimulation systems. It provides a tetherless head-mountable platform suitable for pre-clinical trials.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and MedicineSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207