MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191753288 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2021.07.010

Can excitatory neuromodulation change distorted perception of one's appearance?

2021· letter· en· W3191753288 on OpenAlex
Wan-wa Wong, D. Rangaprakash, Myra S. Larson, Joel P. Diaz‐Fong, Reza Tadayonnejad, Andrew F. Leuchter, Jamie D. Feusner

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersClinical and Translational Science Institute, University of California, Los AngelesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Mental HealthNathan Cummings FoundationJoseph Durda FoundationNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationFunctional magnetic resonance imagingVisual perceptionDorsumPerceptionStimulationMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is marked by preoccupation with misperceived appearance flaws. Previous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have found reduced neural activity and connectivity of visual areas specialized for global/holistic visual processing in BDD [1–3], suggesting that aberrant dorsal visual system functioning might contribute to distorted perception. In this proof-of-concept study we tested if intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), a form of excitatory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), would enhance dorsal visual system utilization as quantified through dynamic effective connectivity (DEC) modeling [4].

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.222 · 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