{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4239276ef1ee07a32b5","dataset_id":"ds002885","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Ahmet Levent Kandemir","Vladimir Litvak","Esther Florin"],"bids_version":"1.2","contact_info":["Ahmet Levent Kandemir"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"10.18112/openneuro.ds002885.v1.0.1","datatypes":["meg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":2,"ages":[],"age_min":null,"age_max":null,"age_mean":null,"species":null,"sex_distribution":null,"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds002885","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":["Volkswagen Foundation (Lichtenberg program 89387)"],"ingestion_fingerprint":"098baf79add1219bed0d37cc1d5d4cb7469046de9749608fb76ff3e1704cc59a","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"DBS Phantom Recordings","readme":"This dataset is a part of the data used for the study: 'Kandemir, A.L., Litvak, V., Florin, E., 2020. The comparative performance of DBS artefact rejection methods for MEG recordings, NeuroImage, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117057.'\nPlease use the latest version of the dataset.\nFor detailed information about measurement protocol please refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117057. Additional information about CTF Phantom measurement is provided below.\nThe customized Matlab code for artefact rejection methods is available at:  https://gitlab.com/lkandemir/dbs-artefact-rejection.\n--------------\nCTF Phantom Measurement\nStimulation reference signal is captured with EEG001\nMovement trigger is captured with UPPT001\nDipole activity is captured with HADC006","recording_modality":["meg"],"senior_author":"Esther Florin","sessions":[],"size_bytes":21543178912,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["DMW","DSMW","EmptyRoom","Reference"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:25:30.437281+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2020-06-05T12:06:29.489Z","dataset_modified_at":"2020-06-24T07:29:11.000Z"},"total_files":7,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds002885","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"bd60318788d25063","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T10:12:12.560263+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Other"],"modality":["Other"],"type":["Other"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.65,"modality":0.7,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Closest few-shot by PURPOSE is the 'Phantom EEG Dataset with Motion, Muscle, and Eye Artifacts...' example (phantom/non-human recording used to validate artifact handling). That example shows the convention that phantom/mechanical validation datasets are typically not treated as a clinical cohort and are labeled with a non-clinical pathology (they used 'Healthy'), and that method/validation-focused datasets may not map cleanly onto cognitive Types. However, unlike that example, the present metadata explicitly describes a CTF phantom MEG measurement for DBS artifact rejection, with no human participants/tasks described, making 'Other' a better fit than 'Healthy' for Pathology under the catalog rule that Pathology reflects recruited clinical population.","metadata_analysis":"Key quoted facts:\n1) Dataset purpose/method focus: \"The comparative performance of DBS artefact rejection methods for MEG recordings\".\n2) Non-human/phantom context: \"CTF Phantom Measurement\".\n3) Signals are technical channels rather than participant stimuli/tasks: \"Stimulation reference signal is captured with EEG001\" and \"Movement trigger is captured with UPPT001\" and \"Dipole activity is captured with HADC006\".\nThese indicate a methodological phantom recording rather than a human sensory/cognitive experiment.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information (only a citation/DOI is provided in metadata; no abstract text included).","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says this is a \"CTF Phantom Measurement\" (no recruited patient group) and focuses on MEG DBS artifact rejection methods; few-shot phantom example suggests using a non-clinical label (they used 'Healthy'). ALIGN in being non-clinical, but differs because this dataset appears to be phantom-only (not a healthy human cohort). Decision: choose 'Other' because it is not a recruited clinical population nor clearly a healthy participant cohort.\n\nModality: Metadata says nothing about sensory stimuli; it describes technical recordings/signals (\"Stimulation reference signal\", \"Movement trigger\", \"Dipole activity\"). Few-shot examples map modality to stimulus channel (auditory/visual/tactile/etc.), but here there is no stimulus modality. ALIGN: lack of sensory paradigm. Decision: 'Other' modality.\n\nType: Metadata explicitly frames the dataset as evaluating \"DBS artefact rejection methods\" and provides code for artifact rejection; no cognitive construct/task is described. Few-shot phantom example is also methods/artifact-centric and does not reflect a cognitive task. ALIGN: methodological/technical purpose. Decision: 'Other' type.","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and selection:\n\nPathology:\n- Other: Supported by \"CTF Phantom Measurement\" and absence of any recruited clinical/healthy participant description; signals described are technical channels.\n- Healthy: Possible by convention for non-clinical datasets (as in the few-shot phantom example).\nHead-to-head: 'Other' wins because metadata indicates phantom-only measurement rather than a human healthy cohort. Confidence limited by sparse metadata.\n\nModality:\n- Other: Supported by lack of sensory stimuli and purely technical channel descriptions (\"Stimulation reference signal...\", \"Movement trigger...\", \"Dipole activity...\").\n- Unknown: Also plausible if modality cannot be inferred.\nHead-to-head: 'Other' wins because we can positively infer this is not a standard sensory modality paradigm but a technical phantom/stimulation setup.\n\nType:\n- Other: Strongly supported by \"comparative performance of DBS artefact rejection methods\" and provided artifact-rejection code link.\n- Clinical/Intervention: Could be considered because DBS relates to clinical therapy, but the dataset described here is phantom validation, not an intervention trial.\nHead-to-head: 'Other' wins because the explicit aim is methodological artifact rejection evaluation, not patient treatment/clinical outcomes."}},"nemar_citation_count":1,"computed_title":"DBS Phantom Recordings","nchans_counts":[{"val":306,"count":4},{"val":314,"count":3}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":19200.0,"count":4},{"val":3000.0,"count":3}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.221797+00:00","total_duration_s":1438.5,"author_year":"Kandemir2020","canonical_name":null}}