A Scoping Review of Machine Learning Applied to Peripheral Nerve Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral nerve interfaces (PNIs) can enable communication with the peripheral nervous system and have a broad range of applications including in bioelectronic medicine and neuroprostheses. They can modulate neural activity through stimulation or monitor conditions by recording from the peripheral nerves. The recent growth of Machine Learning (ML) has led to the application of a wide variety of ML techniques to PNIs, especially in circumstances where the goal is classification or regression. However, the extent to which ML has been applied to PNIs or the range of suitable ML techniques has not been documented. Therefore, a scoping review was conducted to determine and understand the state of ML in the PNI field. The review searched five databases and included 63 studies after full-text review. Most studies incorporated a supervised learning approach to classify activity, with the most common algorithms being some form of neural network (artificial neural network, convolutional neural network or recurrent neural network). Unsupervised, semi-supervised and reinforcement learning (RL) approaches are currently underutilized and could be better leveraged to improve performance in this domain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".