MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311772370 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00229-1

Implementing automation in deep brain stimulation: has the time come?

2022· letter· en· W4311772370 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Bonizzato, Alfonso Fasano

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity Health Network Foundation
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationAutomationStimulationNeuroscienceComputer scienceBrain stimulationPsychologyMedicineEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In The Lancet Digital Health, Jan Roediger and colleagues1 present the results of a prospective, randomised, double-blind, crossover clinical trial assessing the therapeutic benefit of deep brain stimulation (DBS) settings derived from individual neuroimaging metrics. This evaluates a data-driven model of automated DBS parameter setting, maximising the predicted motor symptom control while accounting for potential stimulation-induced side-effects. Compared with current standard of care, the longer monopolar review based on existing clinical algorithms, the authors established non-inferiority of motor symptom control in a cohort of 35 patients with Parkinson's disease treated with DBS of the subthalamic nucleus.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0200.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207