Stimulation to probe, excite, and inhibit the epileptic brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct cortical stimulation has been applied in epilepsy for nearly a century and has experienced a renaissance, given unprecedented opportunities to probe, excite, and inhibit the human brain. Evidence suggests stimulation can increase diagnostic and therapeutic utility in patients with drug-resistant epilepsies. However, choosing appropriate stimulation parameters is not a trivial issue, and is further complicated by epilepsy being characterized by complex brain state dynamics. In this article derived from discussions at the ICTALS 2022 Conference (International Conference on Technology and Analysis for Seizures), we succinctly review the literature on cortical stimulation applied acutely and chronically to the epileptic brain for localization, monitoring, and therapeutic purposes. In particular, we discuss how stimulation is used to probe brain excitability, discuss evidence on the usefulness of stimulation to trigger and stop seizures, review therapeutic applications of stimulation, and finally discuss how stimulation parameters are impacted by brain dynamics. Although research has advanced considerably over the past decade, there are still significant hurdles to optimizing use of this technique. For example, it remains unclear to what extent short timescale diagnostic biomarkers can predict long-term outcomes and to what extent these biomarkers add information to already existing biomarkers from passive electroencephalographic recordings. Further questions include the extent to which closed loop stimulation offers advantages over open loop stimulation, what the optimal closed loop timescales may be, and whether biomarker-informed stimulation can lead to seizure freedom. The ultimate goal of bioelectronic medicine remains not just to stop seizures but rather to cure epilepsy and its comorbidities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".