MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating the Effect of Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation in Parkinson's disease via Microstate Resting State EEG Analysis

2022· article· en· W4323021352 on OpenAlexaff
Kosar Saniar Arani, Alireza Kazemi, Maryam S. Mirian, Abdol‐Hossein Vahabie, Wyatt D. Verchere, Soojin Lee, Hamid Soltanian‐Zadeh, Martin J. McKeown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinistateParkinson's diseaseElectroencephalographyGalvanic vestibular stimulationNeuroscienceDeep brain stimulationResting state fMRIPsychologyAudiologyMedicineDiseaseStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurological disorder based on changes in dynamic brain activity, which can be partially ameliorated with invasive Deep Brain Stimulation. Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS), a non-invasive method, could potentially improve the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease, but the mechanisms are unclear. Biomarkers based on the electroencephalogram (EEG) are being actively pursued. Here we examine the properties of EEG microstates as a potential GVS-sensitive EEG biomarker, whereby multichannel, broadband EEG signals are approximated by a sequence of discrete spatial patterns. We used the Microstate Analysis plugin for EEGLAB and compared the characteristics between healthy (n=20) and people with PD (n=22, stimulated/sham, and OFF Medication/ ON Medication). We extracted 25 Microstate related features from 4 different microstates (‘A’ - ‘D’) and examined their differences between groups (a healthy control group was considered as the reference to extract the feature values). Overall disease severity, as assessed by the clinical Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part 3, was predictable from microstate features. The duration of microstate A - selected by LASSO during UPDRS prediction- was significantly changed by both types of GVS stimuli (multi-sine 50–100 Hz (GVS1), and multi-sine 100–150 Hz (GVS2)), but not medication. The fraction of total recording time for microstate C, also a key feature in disease prediction, was found to be selectively affected GVS1 only. The above results suggest that GVS may provide benefits complementary to medication but in a stimulus-dependent manner. These results could potentially guide optimal GVS design in the pursuit of complementary therapies.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→