Non-invasive brain technologies and their role in clinical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive brain monitoring and stimulation techniques are widely used in research and clinical applications. These techniques allow researchers and clinicians to study and affect brain activity safely, without any risk associated with invasive procedures. AREAS COVERED: The present review paper is focused on noninvasive brain monitoring and stimulation techniques. First, noninvasive brain monitoring techniques that are beneficial for clinical experts to detect neurological disorders are highlighted. These techniques also help to identify the exact locations where cognitive functions are disturbed. Second, noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques that are provided to the patient's specific locations to improve the cognitive function by modulating the neuronal excitability are also discussed in this paper. EXPERT OPINION: Several clinical studies provide strong evidence related to the improvement of cognitive functions of patients suffering from neurological disorders using NIBS procedures. Various studies are being carried out to upgrade the noninvasive brain monitoring and stimulation techniques combined with artificial intelligence (AI) as transformative tool for advancing personalized portable home-based care, which may be beneficial to improve the lifestyle of patients suffering from the neurological disorders.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".