ArticleNeuroImage2022
Computation of transcranial magnetic stimulation electric fields using self-supervised deep learning.
Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Roadmap towards personalized approaches and safety considerations in non-ionizing radiation: from dosimetry to therapeutic and diagnostic applications.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Comprehensive evaluation of U-Net based transcranial magnetic stimulation electric field estimations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Precision TMS through the integration of neuroimaging and machine learning: optimizing stimulation targets for personalized treatment.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
- Real-time estimation of the optimal coil placement in transcranial magnetic stimulation using multi-task deep learning.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Prediction of hippocampal electric field in time series induced by TI-DMS with temporal convolutional network.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- A review of algorithms and software for real-time electric field modeling techniques for transcranial magnetic stimulation.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Review
- Electric Field Modeling in Personalizing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Interventions.Biological psychiatry · 2024Review
- SlicerTMS: Real-Time Visualization of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Mental Health Treatment.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Non-invasive brain stimulation in cognitive sciences and Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
- A Review of Formulations, Boundary Value Problems and Solutions for Numerical Computation of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Fields.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Rapid estimation of cortical neuron activation thresholds by transcranial magnetic stimulation using convolutional neural networks.NeuroImage · 2023Article
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
Electric fields (E-fields) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be modeled using partial differential equations (PDEs). Using state-of-the-art finite-element methods (FEM), it often takes tens of seconds to solve the PDEs for computing a high-resolution E-field, hampering the wide application of the E-field modeling in practice and research. To improve the E-field modeling's computational efficiency, we developed a self-supervised deep learning (DL) method to compute precise TMS E-fields. Given a head model and the primary E-field generated by TMS coils, a DL model was built to generate a E-field by minimizing a loss function that measures how well the generated E-field fits the governing PDE. The DL model was trained in a self-supervised manner, which does not require any external supervision. We evaluated the DL model using both a simulated sphere head model and realistic head models of 125 individuals and compared the accuracy and computational speed of the DL model with a state-of-the-art FEM. In realistic head models, the DL model obtained accurate E-fields that were significantly correlated with the FEM solutions. The DL model could obtain precise E-fields within seconds for whole head models at a high spatial resolution, faster than the FEM. The DL model built for the simulated sphere head model also obtained an accurate E-field whose average difference from the analytical E-fields was 0.0054, comparable to the FEM solution. These results demonstrated that the self-supervised DL method could obtain precise E-fields comparable to the FEM solutions with improved computational speed.
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.