Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36344497›Full record

ReviewTranslational psychiatry2022

From mechanisms to markers: novel noninvasive EEG proxy markers of the neural excitation and inhibition system in humans.

Jumana Ahmad, Claire Ellis, Robert Leech, Bradley Voytek, Pilar Garces, Emily Jones, Jan Buitelaar, Eva Loth, Francisco Páscoa Dos Santos, Adrián F Amil and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Genetics of catatonia: a systematic review of case reports and a gene pathway analysis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Jumana Ahmad *School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK. j.ahmad@greenwich.ac.uk.
Claire Ellis *Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1064-2395
Robert LeechDepartment of Neuroimaging, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Bradley VoytekNeurosciences Graduate Program, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Pilar GarcesRoche Pharma Research and Early Development, Neuroscience and Rare Diseases, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Emily JonesCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK.
Jan BuitelaarDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Eva LothDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9458-9167
Francisco Páscoa Dos SantosEodyne Systems SL, Barcelona, Spain.
Adrián F AmilLaboratory of Synthetic, Perceptive, Emotive and Cognitive Systems (SPECS), Institute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), Barcelona, Spain.
Paul F M J VerschureDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Declan MurphyDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6664-7451
Grainne McAlonanDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversitat Pompeu Fabra · ESBirkbeck, University of London · GBRoche (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N026063/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain function is a product of the balance between excitatory and inhibitory (E/I) brain activity. Variation in the regulation of this activity is thought to give rise to normal variation in human traits, and disruptions are thought to potentially underlie a spectrum of neuropsychiatric conditions (e.g., Autism, Schizophrenia, Downs' Syndrome, intellectual disability). Hypotheses related to E/I dysfunction have the potential to provide cross-diagnostic explanations and to combine genetic and neurological evidence that exists within and between psychiatric conditions. However, the hypothesis has been difficult to test because: (1) it lacks specificity-an E/I dysfunction could pertain to any level in the neural system- neurotransmitters, single neurons/receptors, local networks of neurons, or global brain balance - most researchers do not define the level at which they are examining E/I function; (2) We lack validated methods for assessing E/I function at any of these neural levels in humans. As a result, it has not been possible to reliably or robustly test the E/I hypothesis of psychiatric disorders in a large cohort or longitudinal patient studies. Currently available, in vivo markers of E/I in humans either carry significant risks (e.g., deep brain electrode recordings or using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with radioactive tracers) and/or are highly restrictive (e.g., limited spatial extent for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS). More recently, a range of novel Electroencephalography (EEG) features has been described, which could serve as proxy markers for E/I at a given level of inference. Thus, in this perspective review, we survey the theories and experimental evidence underlying 6 novel EEG markers and their biological underpinnings at a specific neural level. These cheap-to-record and scalable proxy markers may offer clinical utility for identifying subgroups within and between diagnostic categories, thus directing more tailored sub-grouping and, therefore, treatment strategies. However, we argue that studies in clinical populations are premature. To maximize the potential of prospective EEG markers, we first need to understand the link between underlying E/I mechanisms and measurement techniques.

Indexed as

ElectroencephalographySchizophreniaBiomarkersBrainHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural InhibitionTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID36344497
PMCPMC9640647
OpenAlexW4308394105

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.