ArticleBrain communications2021
Prediction of response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in phantom sounds based on individual brain anatomy.
Article in Brain communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unresolved Issues Associated with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Implications of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as a Treatment Modality for Tinnitus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Pre-treatment structural brain biomarkers predict response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in subjective tinnitus.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive brain stimulation can reduce the severity of tinnitus phantom sounds beyond the time of stimulation by inducing regional neuroplastic changes. However, there are no good clinical predictors for treatment outcome. We used machine learning to investigate whether brain anatomy can predict therapeutic outcome. Sixty-one chronic tinnitus patients received repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of left dorsolateral prefrontal and temporal cortex. Before repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, a structural magnetic resonance image was obtained from all patients. To predict individual treatment response in new subjects, we employed a support vector machine ensemble for individual out-of-sample prediction. In the cross-validation, the support vector machine ensemble based on stratified sub-sampling and feature selection yielded an area under the curve of 0.87 for prediction of therapy success in new, previously unseen subjects. This corresponded to a balanced accuracy of 83.5%, sensitivity of 77.2% and specificity of 87.2%. Investigating the most selected features showed the involvement of the auditory cortex but also revealed a network of non-auditory brain areas. These findings suggest that idiosyncratic brain patterns accurately predict individual responses to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for tinnitus. Our findings may hence pave the way for future investigations into the precision treatment of tinnitus, involving automatic identification of the appropriate treatment method for the individual patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.