ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Optimized high-definition tDCS in patients with skull defects and skull plates.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to benefit patients with brain lesions or traumatic brain injury (TBI). These patients usually have skull defects with different sizes and electrical conductivities. There is very little data in the literature that show how to optimally stimulate these patients with the presence of skull defects. Methods: Here we leveraged high-resolution (1 mm) realistic head models to explore the best montages targeting right beneath the skull defects with different sizes and conductivities. Specifically, open-source software ROAST was used to solve for the lead field on the publicly available MIDA model. Four different skull defects/plates were modeled with the center above the right primary motor cortex: a larger defect (10 cm diameter) modeled as either titanium or acrylic plate, and a smaller defect (2.5 cm diameter) modeled as either acute state filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or chronic state with scar tissue. Optimized stimulation with maximal intensity was run using ROAST targeting the right primary motor cortex. Results: We show that optimized high-definition montages can achieve an average of 0.3 V/m higher stimulation intensities at the target compared to un-optimized montages (M1-SO or 4×1). Large skull defects with titanium or acrylic plates significantly reduce the stimulation intensity by about 80%, while small defects with acute (CSF) or chronic (scar) tissues significantly increase the stimulation intensity by about 200%. Furthermore, one can use M1-SO to achieve almost the same stimulation strength as the optimized montage if the skull has a large defect with titanium plate, and there is no significant difference in stimulation intensity between 4×1 montage and the optimized montage for small skull defects with scar tissue. Discussion: Based on this work, future modeling studies leveraging individual anatomy of skull defects may help guide tDCS practice on patients with skull defects and skull plates.
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.