MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407933373 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.12.585

Electrophysiological signatures and effects of pallidal burst stimulation in parkinson’s disease

2025· article· en· W4407933373 on OpenAlexaff
Srdjan Sumarac, William D. Hutchison, Andreas Lozano, Suneil K. Kalia, Luka Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrophysiologyNeuroscienceStimulationDeep brain stimulationMedicinePsychologyDiseaseParkinson's diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary results (analyses in progress) suggest that amygdala TUS reduces emotional biases, particularly toward positive stimuli (happy faces), and decreases sensitivity to negative feedback, as reflected in reaction times and switching behaviour.Task fMRI shows changes in BOLD signal following amygdala TUS in the amygdala and its connected regions, including the frontal pole (FP), perigenual anterior cingulate cortex (pgACC), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC).Amygdala TUS led to decreased BOLD signals in pgACC and FP during incongruent relative to congruent trials.In addition, during learning, amygdala TUS resulted in attenuated BOLD signals in the amygdala and lateral OFC when participants repeated the same action as opposed to switching to a different response.In conclusion, by employing TUS, we provide novel causal evidence for the involvement of amygdala-prefrontal circuits in guiding flexible behaviour in response to emotional cues.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207