MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405297008 · doi:10.1007/s00415-024-12751-0

Survey of common deep brain stimulation programming practices by experts in Parkinson’s Disease

2024· article· en· W4405297008 on OpenAlexaff
Joan E. Cunningham, Laura Y. Cabrera, Abhimanyu Mahajan, Saba Aslam, S. Jesus, Ryan Brennan, Joohi Jimenez‐Shahed, Camila Aquino, Tao Xie, Eleni Okeanis Vaou, Neepa Patel, Matthias Spindler, Kevin Mills, Lin Zhang, John M. Bertoni, Christos Sidiropoulos, Svjetlana Miocinovic, Benjamin L. Walter, Fedor Panov, S. Elizabeth Zauber, Harini Sarva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationParkinson's diseaseNeurologyNeuroradiologyDiseaseStimulationMedicineNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPathology

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurologySame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207