Input–output slope curve estimation in neural stimulation based on optimal sampling principles <sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses some of the practical limitations and issues, which exist for the input-output (IO) slope curve estimation (SCE) in neural, brain and spinal, stimulation techniques. The drawbacks of the SCE techniques by using existing uniform sampling and Fisher-information-based optimal IO curve estimation (FO-IOCE) methods are elaborated. A novel IO SCE technique is proposed with a modified sampling strategy and stopping rule which improve the SCE performance compared to these methods. The effectiveness of the proposed IO SCE is tested on 1000 simulation runs in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), with a realistic model of motor evoked potentials. The results show that the proposed IO SCE method successfully satisfies the stopping rule, before reaching the maximum number of TMS pulses in 79.5% of runs, while the estimation based on the uniform sampling technique never converges and satisfies the stopping rule. At the time of successful termination, the proposed IO SCE method decreases the 95th percentile (mean value in the parentheses) of the absolute relative estimation errors (AREs) of the slope curve parameters up to 7.45% (2.2%), with only 18 additional pulses on average compared to that of the FO-IOCE technique. It also decreases the 95th percentile (mean value in the parentheses) of the AREs of the IO slope curve parameters up to 59.33% (16.71%), compared to that of the uniform sampling method. The proposed IO SCE also identifies the peak slope with higher accuracy, with the 95th percentile (mean value in the parentheses) of AREs reduced by up to 9.96% (2.01%) compared to that of the FO-IOCE method, and by up to 46.29% (13.13%) compared to that of the uniform sampling method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".