Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35663423›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2022

Predicting the Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Cognitive Functions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease by Automated EEG Analysis.

Cihan Bilge Kayasandik, Halil Aziz Velioglu, Lutfu Hanoglu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Machine learning based on event-related oscillations of working memory differentiates between preclinical Alzheimer's disease and normal aging.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Cihan Bilge KayasandikDepartment of Computer Engineering, School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Halil Aziz VeliogluDepartment of Women's and Childrens' Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lutfu HanogluDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Istanbul Medipol University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive, neurodegenerative brain disorder that generally affects the elderly. Today, after the limited benefit of the pharmacological treatment strategies, numerous noninvasive brain stimulation techniques have been developed. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), based on electromagnetic stimulation, is one of the most widely used methods. The main problem in the use of TMS is the existence of large individual variability in the results. This causes a waste of money, time, and more importantly, a burden for delicate patients. Hence, it is a necessity to form an efficient and personalized TMS application protocol. In this paper, we performed a machine-learning analysis to see whether it is possible to predict the responses of patients with AD to TMS by analyzing their electroencephalography (EEG) signals. For that purpose, we analyzed both the EEG signals collected before and after the TMS application (EEG1 and EEG2, respectively). Through correlating EEG1 and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) outcomes, we tried to see whether it is possible to predict patients' responses before the treatment application. On the other hand, by EEG2 analysis, we investigated TMS impacts on EEG, more importantly if this impact is correlated with patients' response to the treatment. We used the support vector machine (SVM) classifier due to its multiple advantages for the current task with feature selection processes by stepwise linear discriminant analysis (SWLDA) and SVM. However, to justify our numerical analysis framework, we examined and compared the performances of different feature selection and classification techniques. Since we have a limited sample number, we used the leave-one-out method for the validation with the Monte Carlo technique to eliminate bias by a small sample size. In the conclusion, we observed that the correlation between rTMS outcomes and EEG2 is stronger than EEG1, since we observed, respectively, 93 and 79% of accuracies during our data analysis. Besides the informative features of EEG2 are focused on theta band, it indicates that TMS is characterizing the theta band signals in patients with AD in direct relation to patients' response to rTMS. This shows that it is more possible to determine patients' benefit from the TMS at the early stages of the treatment, which would increase the efficiency of rTMS applications in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseaseartificial neural networkmachine learningpersonalized treatmentrepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)support vector machine

Identifiers

PMID35663423
PMCPMC9160828
OpenAlexW4280548837

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.