Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28280482›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2017

Using Biophysical Models to Understand the Effect of tDCS on Neurorehabilitation: Searching for Optimal Covariates to Enhance Poststroke Recovery.

Paola Malerba, Sofia Straudi, Felipe Fregni, Maxim Bazhenov, Nino Basaglia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Paola MalerbaDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego , La Jolla, CA , USA.
Sofia StraudiNeuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital , Ferrara , Italy.
Felipe FregniCenter of Neuromodulation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA , USA.
Maxim BazhenovDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Diego , La Jolla, CA , USA.
Nino BasagliaNeuroscience and Rehabilitation Department, Ferrara University Hospital , Ferrara , Italy.

Funding

Low frequency rTMS and fluoxetine for motor recovery after ischemic strokeR21HD079048 · NICHD · SPAULDING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL · PI FREGNI, FELIPE · 2014 to 2015
$448k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD079048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stroke is a leading cause of worldwide disability, and up to 75% of survivors suffer from some degree of arm paresis. Recently, rehabilitation of stroke patients has focused on recovering motor skills by taking advantage of use-dependent neuroplasticity, where high-repetition of goal-oriented movement is at times combined with non-invasive brain stimulation, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Merging the two approaches is thought to provide outlasting clinical gains, by enhancing synaptic plasticity and motor relearning in the motor cortex primary area. However, this general approach has shown mixed results across the stroke population. In particular, stroke location has been found to correlate with the likelihood of success, which suggests that different patients might require different protocols. Understanding how motor rehabilitation and stimulation interact with ongoing neural dynamics is crucial to optimize rehabilitation strategies, but it requires theoretical and computational models to consider the multiple levels at which this complex phenomenon operate. In this work, we argue that biophysical models of cortical dynamics are uniquely suited to address this problem. Specifically, biophysical models can predict treatment efficacy by introducing explicit variables and dynamics for damaged connections, changes in neural excitability, neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, plasticity mechanisms, and repetitive movement, which together can represent brain state, effect of incoming stimulus, and movement-induced activity. In this work, we hypothesize that effects of tDCS depend on ongoing neural activity and that tDCS effects on plasticity may be also related to enhancing inhibitory processes. We propose a model design for each step of this complex system, and highlight strengths and limitations of the different modeling choices within our approach. Our theoretical framework proposes a change in paradigm, where biophysical models can contribute to the future design of novel protocols, in which combined tDCS and motor rehabilitation strategies are tailored to the ongoing dynamics that they interact with, by considering the known biophysical factors recruited by such protocols and their interaction.

Indexed as

biophysical modelingmotor recoveryneurorehabilitationstroketDCS

Identifiers

PMID28280482
PMCPMC5322214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.