ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023
Impact of modeled field of view in electroconvulsive therapy current flow simulations.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational Models of High-Definition Electroconvulsive Therapy for Focal or Multitargeting Treatment.The journal of ECT · 2025Article
- Inkjet-printed transparent electrodes: Design, characterization, and initial in vivo evaluation for brain stimulation.PloS one · 2025Article
- The interplay between pulse width and activation depth in TENS: a computational study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The field of view (FOV) considered in MRI-guided forward models of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are, as expected, limited to the MRI volume collected. Therefore, there is variation in model extent considered across simulation efforts. This study examines the impact of FOV on the induced electric field (E-field) due to two common electrode placements: right unilateral (RUL) and bilateral (BL). Methods: A full-body dataset was obtained and processed for modeling relevant to ECT physics. Multiple extents were derived by truncating from the head down to four levels: upper head (whole-brain), full head, neck, and torso. All relevant stimulation and focality metrics were determined. The differences in the 99th percentile peak of stimulation strength in the brain between each extent to the full-body (reference) model were considered as the relative error (RE). We also determine the FOV beyond which the difference to a full-body model would be negligible. Results: The 2D and 3D spatial plots revealed anticipated results in line with prior efforts. The RE for BL upper head was ~50% reducing to ~2% for the neck FOV. The RE for RUL upper head was ~5% reducing to subpercentage (0.28%) for the full-head FOV. As shown previously, BL was found to stimulate a larger brain volume-but restricted to the upper head and for amplitude up to ~480 mA. To some extent, RUL stimulated a larger volume. The RUL-induced volume was larger even when considering the neural activation threshold corresponding to brief pulse BL if ECT amplitude was >270 mA. This finding is explained by the BL-induced current loss through the inferior regions as more FOV is considered. Our result is a departure from prior efforts and raises questions about the focality metric as defined and/or inter-individual differences. Conclusion: Our findings highlight that BL is impacted more than RUL with respect to FOV. It is imperative to collect full-head data at a minimum for any BL simulation and possibly more. Clinical practice resorts to using BL ECT when RUL is unsuccessful. However, the notion that BL is more efficacious on the premise of stimulating more brain volume needs to be revisited.
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.