MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Conundrums of High-Frequency Oscillations (80–800 Hz) in the Epileptic Brain

2015· review· en· W872847797 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsNeuroscienceEpilepsyComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pathological high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) (80-800 Hz) are considered biomarkers of epileptogenic tissue, but the underlying complex neuronal events are not well understood. Here, we identify and discuss several outstanding issues or conundrums in regards to the recording, analysis, and interpretation of HFOs in the epileptic brain to critically highlight what is known and what is not about these enigmatic events. High-frequency oscillations reflect a range of neuronal processes contributing to overlapping frequencies from the lower 80 Hz to the very fast spectral frequency bands. Given their complex neuronal nature, HFOs are extremely sensitive to recording conditions and analytical approaches. We provide a list of recommendations that could help to obtain comparable HFO signals in clinical and basic epilepsy research. Adopting basic standards will facilitate data sharing and interpretation that collectively will aid in understanding the role of HFOs in health and disease for translational purpose.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.232 · 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