MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387879470 · doi:10.1101/2023.10.19.563097

Closed-Loop Estimation of Neurostimulation Strength-Duration Curve Using Fisher Information Optimization and Comparison With Uniform and Random Methods

2023· preprint· en· W4387879470 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Mohammad Mahdi Alavi

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheobaseMathematicsPulse (music)StatisticsControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmComputer sciencePhysicsVoltageMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Strength-duration (SD) curve, rheobase and chronaxie parameters provide insights about the interdependence between stimulus strength and stimulus duration (or pulse width), and the neural activation dynamics such as the membrane time constant, which are useful for diagnostics and therapeutic applications. The existing SD curve estimation methods are based on open-loop uniform and/or random selection of the pulse widths. Objective To develop a method for closed-loop estimation of the SD curve. Method In the proposed method, after the selection of each pulse width through Fisher information matrix (FIM) optimization, the corresponding motor threshold (MT) is computed, the SD curve estimation is updated, and the process continues until satisfaction of a stopping rule based on the successive convergence of the SD curve parameters. The results are compared with various uniform methods where pulse widths are chosen in ascending, descending and random orders, and with methods with two and all non-uniform random pulse widths. Results 160 simulation cases were run. The FIM method satisfied the stopping rule in 144 runs, and estimated the rheobase (chronaxie in parenthesis) with an average absolute relative error (ARE) of 1.73% (2.46%), with an average of 82 samples. At this point, methods with two and all random pulse widths, and uniform methods with descending, ascending and random orders led to 5.66% (20.27%), 2.15% (4.51%), 8.57% (54.96%), 3.52% (5.45%), and 2.19% (4.40%) AREs, which are greater than that achieved through the FIM method. In all 160 runs, The FIM method has chosen the minimum and maximum pulse widths as the optimal pulse widths. Conclusions The SD curve is identifiable by acquiring the SD data from the minimum and maximum pulse widths achieved through the FIM optimization. The SD data at random or uniform pulse widths from only the vertical area or lower plateau of the curve might not result in satisfactory estimation. Significance This paper provides insights about pulse widths selection in closed-loop and open-loop SD curve estimation methods.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207