ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Refining Brain Stimulation Therapies: An Active Learning Approach to Personalization.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiscale brain modeling: bridging microscopic and macroscopic brain dynamics for clinical and technological applications.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Brain stimulation holds promise for treating brain disorders, but personalizing therapy remains challenging. Effective treatment requires establishing a functional link between stimulation parameters and brain response, yet traditional methods like random sampling (RS) are inefficient and costly. To overcome this, we developed an active learning (AL) framework that identifies optimal relationships between stimulation parameters and brain response with fewer experiments. We validated this framework through three experiments: (1) in silico modeling with synthetic data from a Parkinson's disease model, (2) in silico modeling with real data from a non-human primate, and (3) in vivo modeling with a real-time rat optogenetic stimulation experiment. In each experiment, we compared AL models to RS models, using various query strategies and stimulation parameters (amplitude, frequency, pulse width). AL models consistently outperformed RS models, achieving lower error on unseen test data in silico (
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.