MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294879035 · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2022.08.018

Digitalized transcranial electrical stimulation: A consensus statement

2022· review· en· W4294879035 on OpenAlexaff
André R. Brunoni, Hamed Ekhtiari, Andrea Antal, Paradee Auvichayapat, Chris Baeken, Isabela M. Benseñor, Marom Bikson, Paulo S. Boggio, Barbara Borroni, Filippo Brighina, Jérôme Brunelin, Sandra Carvalho, Wolnei Caumo, Patrick Ciechanski, Leigh Charvet, Vincent P. Clark, Roi Cohen Kadosh, Maria Cotelli, Abhishek Datta, Zhi‐De Deng, Rudi De Raedt, Dirk De Ridder, Paul B. Fitzgerald, Agnes Flöel, Flavio Frӧhlich, Mark S. George, Peyman Ghobadi‐Azbari, Stephan Goerigk, Roy H. Hamilton, Shapour Jaberzadeh, Kate E. Hoy, Dawson J. Kidgell, Arash Khojasteh Zonoozi, Adam Kirton, Steven Laureys, Michal Lavidor, Kiwon Lee, Jorge Leite, Sarah H. Lisanby, Colleen Loo, Donel Martin, Carlo Miniussi, Marine Mondino, Kátia Monte‐Silva, León Morales-Quezada, Michael A. Nitsche, Alexandre Hideki Okano, Cláudia Santos Oliveira, Balder Onarheim, Kevin Pacheco‐Barrios, Frank Padberg, Ester Miyuki Nakamura-Palacios, Ulrich Palm, Walter Paulus, Christian Plewnia, Alberto Priori, Tarek K. Rajji, Laís B. Razza, Erik M. Rehn, Giulio Ruffini, Klaus Schellhorn, Mehran Zare-Bidoky, Marcel Simis, Pawel Skorupinski, Paulo Suen, Aurore Thibaut, Leandro C. L. Valiengo, Marie–Anne Vanderhasselt, Sven Vanneste, Ganesan Venkatasubramanian, Inês R. Violante, Anna Wexler, Adam J. Woods, Felipe Fregni

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Neurophysiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Dementia Research AllianceCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationStatement (logic)NeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationMedicinePsychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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