ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Proper reference selection and re-referencing to mitigate bias in single pulse electrical stimulation data.
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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Single pulse electrical stimulation experiments produce pulse-evoked potentials used to infer brain connectivity. The choice of recording reference for intracranial electrodes remains non-standardized and can significantly impact data interpretation. When the reference electrode is affected by stimulation or evoked brain activity, it can contaminate the pulse-evoked potentials recorded at all other electrodes and influence interpretation of findings. We highlight this specific issue in intracranial EEG datasets from two subjects recorded at separate institutions. We present several intuitive metrics to detect the presence of reference contamination and offer practical guidance on different mitigation strategies. Either switching the reference electrode or re-referencing to an adjusted common average effectively mitigated the reference contamination issue, as evidenced by increased variability in pulse-evoked potentials across the brain. Overall, we demonstrate the importance of clear quality checks and preprocessing steps that should be performed before analysis of single pulse electrical stimulation data.
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.