MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394687953 · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2024.03.039

The consequences of the new European reclassification of non-invasive brain stimulation devices and the medical device regulations pose an existential threat to research and treatment: An invited opinion paper

2024· article· en· W4394687953 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea Antal, Ana Ganho-Ávila, Sara Assecondi, Tracy Barbour, Jovana Bjekić, Daniel M. Blumberger, Nadia Bolognini, Jérôme Brunelin, Lorena Chanes, Matthew Dale, Raffaele Dubbioso, Giordano D’Urso, Igor Filipčić, Saša R. Filipović, Marco Hirnstein, Femke Konings, Berthold Langguth, Letizia Leocani, Majid Memarian Sorkhabi, Marc Mulder, Mika Nikander, Rafał Nowak, Antonio Oliviero, Balder Onarheim, Jacinta O’Shea, Stefano Pallanti, Fady Rachid, Joana Rajão‐Saraiva, Símone Rossi, Alexander T. Sack, Anne Sauvaget, Rik van der Scheer, Klaus Schellhorn, Aureli Soria‐Frisch, David Szekely, Hatice Tankişi, Paul Cj Taylor, Indira Tendolkar, Susanne Uusitalo, Chris Baeken

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Neurophysiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeServierOulun YliopistoUniversidade de CoimbraFondation Brain CanadaEuropean CommissionMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónGeneralitat de CatalunyaBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungWellcome TrustIndiviorCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPfizerCentre for Addiction and Mental Health FoundationFondazione Cassa Di Risparmio Di Trento E RoveretoEli Lilly and CompanyBrainsWayAstraZenecaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis AvançatsAmerican Tinnitus Association
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationBureaucracyTranscranial magnetic stimulationBrain stimulationConstructiveStimulationMedical researchNeuroscienceMedical devicePsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicineProcess (computing)Computer scienceLawPathologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0450.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical NeurophysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207