ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2024
Predicting interindividual response to theta burst stimulation in the lower limb motor cortex using machine learning.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crosstalk Between Cortical Plasticity and Peripheral Nervous Injury: Insights, Mechanisms, and Future Directions.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Review
- Complexity of resting cortical activity predicts neurophysiological responses to theta-burst stimulation but fails to generalize: A rigorous machine-learning approach.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Complexity of Resting Cortical Activity Predicts Neurophysiological Responses to Theta- Burst Stimulation but Fails to Generalize: A Rigorous Machine-Learning Approach.Research square · 2025Article
- A feasibility study of sequenced TMS and TBS dosing in adolescents with major depressive disorder.Transcranial magnetic stimulation (2024) · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using theta burst stimulation (TBS) to induce neural plasticity has played an important role in improving the treatment of neurological disorders. However, the variability of TBS-induced synaptic plasticity in the primary motor cortex prevents its clinical application. Thus, factors associated with this variability should be explored to enable the creation of a predictive model. Statistical approaches, such as regression analysis, have been used to predict the effects of TBS. Machine learning may potentially uncover previously unexplored predictive factors due to its increased capacity for capturing nonlinear changes. In this study, we used our prior dataset (Katagiri et al., 2020) to determine the factors that predict variability in TBS-induced synaptic plasticity in the lower limb motor cortex for both intermittent (iTBS) and continuous (cTBS) TBS using machine learning. Validation of the created model showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 and 0.69 and positive predictive values of 77.7 and 70.0% for iTBS and cTBS, respectively; the negative predictive value was 75.5% for both patterns. Additionally, the accuracy was 0.76 and 0.72, precision was 0.82 and 0.67, recall was 0.82 and 0.67, and F1 scores were 0.82 and 0.67 for iTBS and cTBS, respectively. The most important predictor of iTBS was the motor evoked potential amplitude, whereas it was the intracortical facilitation for cTBS. Our results provide additional insights into the prediction of the effects of TBS variability according to baseline neurophysiological factors.
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.