Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38532009›Full record

ArticleMolecular psychiatry2024

Chronometric TMS-fMRI of personalized left dorsolateral prefrontal target reveals state-dependency of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex effects.

Sarah Grosshagauer, Michael Woletz, Maria Vasileiadi, David Linhardt, Lena Nohava, Anna-Lisa Schuler, Christian Windischberger, Nolan Williams, Martin Tik

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Sarah GrosshagauerCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0009-0001-4360-9866
Michael WoletzCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9200-4468
Maria VasileiadiCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
David LinhardtCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8730-9793
Lena NohavaCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Anna-Lisa SchulerResearch Group Cognition and Plasticity, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
Christian WindischbergerCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9944-0190
Nolan WilliamsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Martin TikCenter for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. martin.tik@meduniwien.ac.at.ORCID 0000-0002-6571-4413

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 33180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied to a left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) area with a specific connectivity profile to the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC) has emerged as a highly effective non-invasive treatment option for depression. However, antidepressant outcomes demonstrate significant variability among therapy plans and individuals. One overlooked contributing factor is the individual brain state at the time of treatment. In this study we used interleaved TMS-fMRI to investigate the influence of brain state on acute TMS effects, both locally and remotely. TMS was performed during rest and during different phases of cognitive task processing. Twenty healthy participants were included in this study. In the first session, imaging data for TMS targeting were acquired, allowing for identification of individualized targets in the left DLPFC based on highest anti-correlation with the sgACC. The second session involved chronometric interleaved TMS-fMRI measurements, with 10 Hz triplets of TMS administered during rest and at distinct timings during an N-back task. Consistent with prior findings, interleaved TMS-fMRI revealed significant BOLD activation changes in the targeted network. The precise timing of TMS relative to the cognitive states during the task demonstrated distinct BOLD response in clinically relevant brain regions, including the sgACC. Employing a standardized timing approach for TMS using a task revealed more consistent modulation of the sgACC at the group level compared to stimulation during rest. In conclusion, our findings strongly suggest that acute local and remote effects of TMS are influenced by brain state during stimulation. This study establishes a basis for considering brain state as a significant factor in designing treatment protocols, possibly improving TMS treatment outcomes.

Indexed as

Dorsolateral Prefrontal CortexGyrus CinguliMagnetic Resonance ImagingTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultBrain MappingCognitionDepressionFemaleHumansMalePrefrontal CortexYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38532009
PMCPMC11420068

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.