ArticleScientific reports2023
Development and application of rTMS device to murine model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation suppresses glia-associated neuroinflammation and promotes peripheral nerve recovery in neuropathic pain.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Non-invasive therapeutics for neurotrauma: a mechanistic overview.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Molecular Changes in the Ischemic Brain as Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation Targets-TMS and tDCS Mechanisms, Therapeutic Challenges, and Combination Therapies.Biomedicines · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is attracting attention as a new treatment technique for brain lesions, and many animal studies showing its effects have been reported. However, the findings of animal application researches cannot directly represent the effects of rTMS in human, mainly due to size difference and mechanistic characteristics of rTMS. Therefore, the authors purposed to develop a mouse rTMS to simulate clinical application and to confirm. Firstly, a virtual head model was created according to magnetic resonance images of murine head. Then, simulations of rTMS stimulation with different coils were performed on the murine head phantom, and an rTMS device for mice was fabricated based on the optimal voltage conditions. Lastly, strengths of magnetic fields generated by the two rTMS devices, for human (conventional clinical use) and mouse (newly fabricated), were measured in air and on mouse head and compared. Resultantly, the magnetic field intensity generated by coil of mouse was lower than human's (p < 0.01), and no differences were found between the predicted simulation values and the measured intensity in vivo (p > 0.05). Further in vivo researches using miniaturized rTMS devices for murine head should be followed to be more meaningful for human.
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.