Building consensus on clinical outcome assessments for BCI devices. A summary of the 10th BCI society meeting 2023 workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective : The 10th International brain computer interface (BCI) Society Meeting, ‘Balancing Innovation and Translation’, was held from the 6th to 9th of June 2023 in Brussels, Belgium. This report provides a summary of the workshop ‘ Building Consensus on Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) for BCI Devices ’. This workshop was intended to give participants an overview of the current state of BCI, future opportunities, and how different countries and regions provide regulatory oversight to support the BCI community to develop safe and effective devices for patients. Approach : Five presentations and a panel discussion including representatives from regulators, industry, and clinical research stakeholders focused on how various stakeholders and the BCI community might best work together to ensure studies provide data that is useful for evaluating safety and effectiveness, including reaching consensus on COAs that represent clinically meaningful benefits and support regulatory and payor requirements. This report focuses on the regulatory and reimbursement requirements for medical devices and how to best measure safety and effectiveness and summarizes the presentations from five experts and the discussion between the panel and the audience. Main results : Consensus was reached on the following items specifically related to BCI: (i) the importance of and need for a new generation of COAs, (ii) the challenges facing the development of appropriate clinical outcome assessments, and (iii) that improvements in COAs should demonstrate obvious and clinically meaningful benefit(s). There was discussion on: (i) clinical trial design for BCIs and (ii) considerations for payor reimbursement and other funding. Significance : Whilst the importance of building community consensus on COAs was apparent, further collaboration will be required to reach consensus on which specific current and/or novel COAs could be used for the BCI field to evolve from research to market.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".