ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Dosimetry between Structured and Unstructured Grids Using Different Solvers.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-Sensitivity Non-Invasive Microwave Glucose Sensor with ZnO/CNT Composite Optimized by Deep Learning for Wearable Medical Devices.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Special Issue "Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine: From Mechanisms to Biomedical Applications: 2nd Edition".Bioengineering (Basel, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent years, the interest in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has surged, necessitating deeper understanding, development, and use of low-frequency (LF) numerical dosimetry for TMS studies. While various ad hoc dosimetric models exist, commercial software tools like SimNIBS v4.0 and Sim4Life v7.2.4 are preferred for their user-friendliness and versatility. SimNIBS utilizes unstructured tetrahedral mesh models, while Sim4Life employs voxel-based models on a structured grid, both evaluating induced electric fields using the finite element method (FEM) with different numerical solvers. Past studies primarily focused on uniform exposures and voxelized models, lacking realism. Our study compares these LF solvers across simplified and realistic anatomical models to assess their accuracy in evaluating induced electric fields. We examined three scenarios: a single-shell sphere, a sphere with an orthogonal slab, and a MRI-derived head model. The comparison revealed small discrepancies in induced electric fields, mainly in regions of low field intensity. Overall, the differences were contained (below 2% for spherical models and below 12% for the head model), showcasing the potential of computational tools in advancing exposure assessment required for TMS protocols in different bio-medical applications.
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.