ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
NeurostimML: A machine learning model for predicting neurostimulation-induced tissue damage.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The safe delivery of electrical current to neural tissue depends on many factors, yet previous methods for predicting tissue damage rely on only a few stimulation parameters. Here, we report the development of a machine learning approach that could lead to a more reliable method for predicting electrical stimulation-induced tissue damage by incorporating additional stimulation parameters. Approach: A literature search was conducted to build an initial database of tissue response information after electrical stimulation, categorized as either damaging or non-damaging. Subsequently, we used ordinal encoding and random forest for feature selection, and investigated four machine learning models for classification: Logistic Regression, K-nearest Neighbor, Random Forest, and Multilayer Perceptron. Finally, we compared the results of these models against the accuracy of the Shannon equation. Main Results: We compiled a database with 387 unique stimulation parameter combinations collected from 58 independent studies conducted over a period of 47 years, with 195 (51%) categorized as non-damaging and 190 (49%) categorized as damaging. The features selected for building our model with a Random Forest algorithm were: waveform shape, geometric surface area, pulse width, frequency, pulse amplitude, charge per phase, charge density, current density, duty cycle, daily stimulation duration, daily number of pulses delivered, and daily accumulated charge. The Shannon equation yielded an accuracy of 63.9% using a k value of 1.79. In contrast, the Random Forest algorithm was able to robustly predict whether a set of stimulation parameters was classified as damaging or non-damaging with an accuracy of 88.3%. Significance: This novel Random Forest model can facilitate more informed decision making in the selection of neuromodulation parameters for both research studies and clinical practice. This study represents the first approach to use machine learning in the prediction of stimulation-induced neural tissue damage, and lays the groundwork for neurostimulation driven by machine learning models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.