MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283363691 · doi:10.7759/cureus.26215

Establishing a Clinical Brain-Computer Interface Program for Children With Severe Neurological Disabilities

2022· article· en· W4283363691 on OpenAlex
Zeanna Jadavji, Ephrem Zewdie, Dion Kelly, Eli Kinney‐Lang, Ion Robu, Adam Kirton

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

VenueCureus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral palsyBrain–computer interfaceCognitionPopulationRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychiatryElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children with severe motor impairment but intact cognition are deprived of fundamental human rights. Quadriplegic cerebral palsy is the most common scenario where rehabilitation options remain limited. Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) represent a potential solution, but pediatric populations have been neglected. Direct engagement of children and families could provide meaningful opportunities while informing program development. We describe a patient-centered, clinical, non-invasive pediatric BCI program. METHODS: Eligible children were identified within a population-based, tertiary care children's hospital. Criteria included 1) age six to 18 years, 2) severe physical disability (non-ambulatory, minimal hand use), 3) severely limited speech, and 4) evidence of grade 1 cognitive capacity. After initial screening for BCI competency, participants attended regular sessions, attempting commercially available and customized systems to play computer games, control devices, and attempt communication. RESULTS: We report the first 10 participants (median 11 years, range 6-16, 60% male). Over 334 hours of participation, there were no serious adverse events. BCI training was well tolerated, with favorable feedback from children and parents. All but one participant demonstrated the ability to perform BCI tasks. The majority performed well, using motor imagery based tasks for games and entertainment. Difficulties were most significant using P300, visual evoked potential based paradigms where maintenance of attention was challenging. Children and families expressed interest in continuing and informing program development. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered clinical BCI programs are feasible for children with severe disabilities. Carefully selected participants can often learn quickly to perform meaningful tasks on readily available systems. Patient and family motivation and engagement appear high.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.287 · 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