ReviewBrain stimulation
Applications of open-source software ROAST in clinical studies: A review.
Review in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cranial Sutures Alter Computational Models of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.The journal of ECT · 2026Article
- Effect of cerebellar stimulation on postural control and associated resting-state functional alterations in chronic ankle instability.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Precise and Rapid Whole-Head Segmentation from Magnetic Resonance Images of Older Adults using Deep Learning.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the orbitofrontal cortex reduces delay discounting.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- A map of evidence using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognition in adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI).Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTranscranial electrical stimulation (TES) is broadly investigated as a therapeutic technique for a wide range of neurological disorders. The electric fields induced by TES in the brain can be estimated by computational models. A realistic and volumetric approach to simulate TES (ROAST) has been recently released as an open-source software package and has been widely used in TES research and its clinical applications. Rigor and reproducibility of TES studies have recently become a concern, especially in the context of computational modeling.
methodsHere we reviewed 94 clinical TES studies that leveraged ROAST for computational modeling. When reviewing each study, we pay attention to details related to the rigor and reproducibility as defined by the locations of stimulation electrodes and the dose of stimulating current. Specifically, we compared across studies the electrode montages, stimulated brain areas, achieved electric field strength, and the relations between modeled electric field and clinical outcomes.
resultsWe found that over 1800 individual heads have been modeled by ROAST for more than 30 different clinical applications. Similar electric field intensities were found to be reproducible by ROAST across different studies at the same brain area under same or similar stimulation montages.
conclusionThis article reviews the use cases of ROAST and provides an overview of how ROAST has been leveraged to enhance the rigor and reproducibility of TES research and its applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.