MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391817443 · doi:10.1016/j.xpro.2024.102885

Gaussian-process-based Bayesian optimization for neurostimulation interventions in rats

2024· article· en· W4391817443 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSTAR Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsNeurostimulationBayesian optimizationProtocol (science)Computer scienceGaussian processBayesian probabilityProcess (computing)GaussianNeuroscienceStimulationArtificial intelligencePsychologyMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective neural stimulation requires adequate parametrization. Gaussian-process (GP)-based Bayesian optimization (BO) offers a framework to discover optimal stimulation parameters in real time. Here, we first provide a general protocol to deploy this framework in neurostimulation interventions and follow by exemplifying its use in detail. Specifically, we describe the steps to implant rats with multi-channel electrode arrays in the hindlimb motor cortex. We then detail how to utilize the GP-BO algorithm to maximize evoked target movements, measured as electromyographic responses. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Bonizzato and colleagues (2023).1

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.314 · 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