MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407934847 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.12.010

Intrinsic Measures of Brain Excitability - State-of-the-Science and Potential Translations

2025· article· en· W4407934847 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Pellegrino

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cortical excitability has been defined as the reactivity of a cortical area to external stimulation (usually TMS).Commonly excitability is measured via motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) that are elicited due to TMS over the primary motor cortex (M1).There has, however, been a debate on the transferability of this measure to the excitability of other cortical areas, specifically association cortices, since strictly spoken MEPs measure corticospinal excitability and the primary motor cortex has a different functional and structural architecture as compared to other brain areas.The accurate measurement of cortical excitability is not only highly relevant in basic research but is of high importance in neurological conditions that are characterize by malfunctions of E/I circuits including epilepsy, migraine or stroke.Different stimulation-free approaches have been suggested to evaluate the 'intrinsic' excitability of brain areas beyond M1, among these specific modelling of BOLD fMRI and M/EEG data.In this talk an overview about 'intrinsic' excitability measures is given.In our research we explore 'intrinsic' excitability measures by validating them with different means such as acoustic or transcranial magnetic stimulation.Finally, we will give an outlook on how these measures can be translated into clinical practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207