ArticleBrain stimulation
Realistic electric field characterization of clinically used deformable large TMS coils in a large cohort.
Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing and assessing multichannel TMS focality.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Comparison of rTMS and dTMS in TRD: evidence gaps, cost-effectiveness, and ethical priorities.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
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
backgroundTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) therapies use both focal and unfocal coil designs. Unfocal designs often employ bendable windings and moveable parts, making realistic simulations of their electric fields in inter-individually varying head sizes and shapes challenging. This hampers comparisons of the various coil designs and prevents systematic evaluations of their dose-response relationships.
objectiveIntroduce and validate a novel method for optimizing the position and shape of flexible coils taking individual head anatomies into account. Evaluate the impact of realistic modeling of flexible coils on the electric field simulated in the brain.
methodsAccurate models of four coils (Brainsway H1, H4, H7; MagVenture MST-Twin) were derived from computed tomography data and mechanical measurements. A generic representation of coil deformations by concatenated linear transformations was introduced and validated. This served as basis for a principled approach to optimize the coil positions and shapes, and to optionally maximize the electric field strength in a region of interest (ROI).
resultsFor all four coil models, the new method achieved configurations that followed the scalp anatomy while robustly preventing coil-scalp intersections on 1100 head models. In contrast, setting only the coil center positions without shape deformation regularly led to physically impossible configurations. This also affected the electric field calculated in the cortex, with a median peak difference of ∼16 %. In addition, the new method outperformed grid search-based optimization for maximizing the electric field of a standard Fig. 8 coil in a ROI with a comparable computational complexity.
conclusionOur approach alleviates practical hurdles that so far hampered accurate simulations of bendable coils. This enables systematic comparison of dose-response relationships across the various coil designs employed in therapy.
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.