Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37593620›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Efficient extraction of data from intra-operative evoked potentials: 1.-Theory and simulations.

Mark M Stecker, Jonathan Wermelinger, Jay Shils

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark M SteckerFresno Institute of Neuroscience, USA.
Jonathan WermelingerNeurosurgery Department, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland.
Jay ShilsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Rush College of Medicine, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quickly and efficiently extracting evoked potential information from noise is critical to the clinical practice of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM). Currently this is primarily done using trained professionals to interpret averaged waveforms. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and compare multiple means of electronically extracting simple to understand evoked potential characteristics with minimum averaging. A number of evoked potential models are studied and their performance evaluated as a function of the signal to noise level in simulations. Methods: which extract the least number of parameters from the data are least sensitive to the effects of noise and are easiest to interpret. The simplest model uses the baseline evoked potential and the correlation receiver to provide an amplitude measure. Amplitude measures extracted using the correlation receiver show superior performance to those based on peak to peak amplitude measures. In addition, measures of change in latency or shape of the evoked potential can be extracted using the derivative of the baseline evoked response or other methods. This methodology allows real-time access to amplitude measures that can be understood by the entire OR staff as they are small, dimensionless numbers of order unity which are simple to interpret. The IONM team can then adjust averaging and other parameters to allow for visual interpretation of waveforms as appropriate.

Indexed as

AmplitudeCorrelationDetectionEvoked potentialLatencyLeast squaresReceiver

Identifiers

PMID37593620
PMCPMC10428058

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.