Using neural biomarkers to personalize dosing of vagus nerve stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an established therapy for treating a variety of chronic diseases, such as epilepsy, depression, obesity, and for stroke rehabilitation. However, lack of precision and side-effects have hindered its efficacy and extension to new conditions. Achieving a better understanding of the relationship between VNS parameters and neural and physiological responses is therefore necessary to enable the design of personalized dosing procedures and improve precision and efficacy of VNS therapies. METHODS: We used biomarkers from recorded evoked fiber activity and short-term physiological responses (throat muscle, cardiac and respiratory activity) to understand the response to a wide range of VNS parameters in anaesthetised pigs. Using signal processing, Gaussian processes (GP) and parametric regression models we analyse the relationship between VNS parameters and neural and physiological responses. RESULTS: Firstly, we illustrate how considering multiple stimulation parameters in VNS dosing can improve the efficacy and precision of VNS therapies. Secondly, we describe the relationship between different VNS parameters and the evoked fiber activity and show how spatially selective electrodes can be used to improve fiber recruitment. Thirdly, we provide a detailed exploration of the relationship between the activations of neural fiber types and different physiological effects. Finally, based on these results, we discuss how recordings of evoked fiber activity can help design VNS dosing procedures that optimize short-term physiological effects safely and efficiently. CONCLUSION: Understanding of evoked fiber activity during VNS provide powerful biomarkers that could improve the precision, safety and efficacy of VNS therapies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".