MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4280629063 · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2022.04.022

Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: What is stimulated? – A consensus and critical position paper

2022· review· en· W4280629063 on OpenAlexaff
Hartwig R. Siebner, Klaus Funke, Aman S. Aberra, Andrea Antal, Sven Bestmann, Robert Chen, Joseph Claßen, Marco Davare, Vincenzo Di Lazzaro, Peter T. Fox, Mark Hallett, Anke Ninija Karabanov, Janine Kesselheim, Mikkel Malling Beck, Giacomo Koch, David Liebetanz, Sabine Meunier, Carlo Miniussi, Walter Paulus, Angel V. Peterchev, Traian Popa, Michael C. Ridding, Axel Thielscher, Ulf Ziemann, John C. Rothwell, Yoshikazu Ugawa

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Neurophysiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilFondation DefitechH. Lundbeck A/SNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNovo NordiskBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institutes of HealthSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeNovo Nordisk FondenNational Institute of Mental HealthFondazione Cassa Di Risparmio Di Trento E RoveretoLundbeckfondenInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNiedersächsische Ministerium für Wissenschaft und KulturMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialExcitatory postsynaptic potentialTranscranial magnetic stimulationAxonDepolarizationStimulus (psychology)StimulationWhite matterHuman brainChemistryPsychologyBiologyMagnetic resonance imagingBiophysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0140.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations546
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Neurophysiology→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→