Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38562225›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2024

Opportunities and obstacles in non-invasive brain stimulation.

Jake Toth, Danielle Lauren Kurtin, Méadhbh Brosnan, Mahnaz Arvaneh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. An integrated investigation of systemic and localized pathophysiological mechanisms of stroke and multimodal therapeutic strategies.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

4 authors.

Jake TothAutomatic Control and Systems Engineering, Neuroscience Institute, Insigneo Institute, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Danielle Lauren KurtinDepartment of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Méadhbh BrosnanSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Mahnaz ArvanehAutomatic Control and Systems Engineering, Neuroscience Institute, Insigneo Institute, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a complex and multifaceted approach to modulating brain activity and holds the potential for broad accessibility. This work discusses the mechanisms of the four distinct approaches to modulating brain activity non-invasively: electrical currents, magnetic fields, light, and ultrasound. We examine the dual stochastic and deterministic nature of brain activity and its implications for NIBS, highlighting the challenges posed by inter-individual variability, nebulous dose-response relationships, potential biases and neuroanatomical heterogeneity. Looking forward, we propose five areas of opportunity for future research: closed-loop stimulation, consistent stimulation of the intended target region, reducing bias, multimodal approaches, and strategies to address low sample sizes.

Indexed as

brain stimulationFUSneurotechnologytDCStESTMStPBMTUS

Identifiers

PMID38562225
PMCPMC10982339

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.