MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386565976 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.09.007

Mood biomarkers of response to deep brain stimulation in depression measured with a sensing system

2023· letter· en· W4386565976 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Davidson, Maximilian Scherer, Peter Giacobbe, Sean M. Nestor, Agessandro Abrahão, Jennifer S. Rabin, Liane Phung, Fa‐Hsuan Lin, Nir Lipsman, Luka Milosevic, Clement Hamani

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsKrembil FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationNeuroscienceNeuromodulationBrain stimulationCingulum (brain)StimulationMedicineTreatment-resistant depressionPsychologyMajor depressive disorderInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingDiffusion MRIRadiologyCognitionFractional anisotropyParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

in this letter describes a technique for acquiring patient-specific data from mood fluctuations occurring throughout the day using a sensing deep brain stimulation (DBS) system. Previous attempts to uncover neurophysiologic biomarkers for depression were promising, but greatly hampered by technological challenges involved in recording local field potentials (LFP) from implanted devices [1]. Recent studies have exposed the possibilities and complexities of implementing a patient-specific biomarker and stimulation selection closed-loop approach with a system already approved for the treatment of epilepsy [2].

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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207