MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402462549 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.09.004

Strategies to mitigate scalp discomfort during repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

2024· letter· en· W4402462549 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jennifer I. Lissemore, Derrick Matthew Buchanan, Jean-Marie Batail, Irakli Kaloiani, Clive Veerapal, Gregory L. Sahlem, Nolan Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationScalpMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationNeurosciencePsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and well-tolerated treatment for various psychiatric conditions, up to 40 % of patients experience scalp discomfort or pain during stimulation [1,2]. Discomfort at the site of stimulation can make it difficult for some patients to reach their target dose, and has been associated with non-response to treatment [3,4]. Effective, feasible solutions to alleviate pain at the stimulation site could enhance tolerability and treatment outcomes, yet there is a shortage of empirical data on methods to mitigate discomfort during stimulation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207