ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2024
A computational model elucidating mechanisms and variability in theta burst stimulation responses.
Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modulation of brain oscillations by continuous theta burst stimulation in patients with insomnia.Translational psychiatry · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a form of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with unknown underlying mechanisms and highly variable responses across subjects. To investigate these issues, we developed a simple computational model. Our model consisted of two neurons linked by an excitatory synapse that incorporates two mechanisms: short-term plasticity (STP) and spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP). We applied a variable-amplitude current through I-clamp with a TBS time pattern to the pre- and post-synaptic neurons, simulating synaptic plasticity. We analyzed the results and provided an explanation for the effects of TBS, as well as the variability of responses to it. Our findings suggest that the interplay of STP and STDP mechanisms determines the direction of plasticity, which selectively affects synapses in extended neurons and underlies functional effects. Our model describes how the timing, number, and intensity of pulses delivered to neurons during rTMS contribute to induced plasticity. This not only successfully explains the different effects of intermittent TBS (iTBS) and continuous TBS (cTBS), but also predicts the results of other protocols such as 10 Hz rTMS. We propose that the variability in responses to TBS can be attributed to the variable span of neuronal thresholds across individuals and sessions. Our model suggests a biologically plausible mechanism for the diverse responses to TBS protocols and aligns with experimental data on iTBS and cTBS outcomes. This model could potentially aid in improving TBS and rTMS protocols and customizing treatments for patients, brain areas, and brain disorders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39120822What 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.