ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Statistical method accounts for microscopic electric field distortions around neurons when simulating activation thresholds.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Notwithstanding advances in computational models of neuromodulation, there are mismatches between simulated and experimental activation thresholds. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) of the primary motor cortex generates motor evoked potentials (MEPs). At the threshold of MEP generation, whole-head models predict macroscopic (at millimeter scale) electric fields (50-70 V/m) which are considerably below conventionally simulated cortical neuron thresholds (175-350 V/m). Methods: We hypothesize that this apparent contradiction is in part a consequence of electrical field warping by brain microstructure. Classical neuronal models ignore the physical presence of neighboring neurons and microstructure and assume that the macroscopic field directly acts on the neurons. In previous work, we performed advanced numerical calculations considering realistic microscopic compartments (e.g., cells, blood vessels), resulting in locally inhomogeneous (micrometer scale) electric field and altered neuronal activation thresholds. Here we combine detailed neural threshold simulations under homogeneous field assumptions with microscopic field calculations, leveraging a novel statistical approach. Results: We show that, provided brain-region specific microstructure metrics, a single statistically derived scaling factor between microscopic and macroscopic electric fields can be applied in predicting neuronal thresholds. For the cortical sample considered, the statistical methods match TMS experimental thresholds. Conclusions: Our approach can be broadly applied to neuromodulation models, where fully coupled microstructure scale simulations may not be computationally tractable.
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.