MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206074253 · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2021.09.013

Central nervous system physiology

2021· review· en· W3206074253 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Rothwell, Andrea Antal, David Burke, Anthony N. Carlsen, Dejan Georgiev, Marjan Jahanshahi, Dagmar Sternad, Josep Valls‐Solé, Ulf Ziemann

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Neurophysiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsNeuroscienceTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeurophysiologySpinal cordCentral nervous systemPsychologyStimulationNeuromodulationElectroencephalographyTranscranial alternating current stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second chapter of the series on the use of clinical neurophysiology for the study of movement disorders. It focusses on methods that can be used to probe neural circuits in brain and spinal cord. These include use of spinal and supraspinal reflexes to probe the integrity of transmission in specific pathways; transcranial methods of brain stimulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation, which activate or modulate (respectively) the activity of populations of central neurones; EEG methods, both in conjunction with brain stimulation or with behavioural measures that record the activity of populations of central neurones; and pure behavioural measures that allow us to build conceptual models of motor control. The methods are discussed mainly in relation to work on healthy individuals. Later chapters will focus specifically on changes caused by pathology.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.017

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical NeurophysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207