ReviewHuman brain mapping2024
CutFEM-based MEG forward modeling improves source separability and sensitivity to quasi-radial sources: A somatosensory group study.
Review in Human brain mapping, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Source analysis of magnetoencephalography (MEG) data requires the computation of the magnetic fields induced by current sources in the brain. This so-called MEG forward problem includes an accurate estimation of the volume conduction effects in the human head. Here, we introduce the Cut finite element method (CutFEM) for the MEG forward problem. CutFEM's meshing process imposes fewer restrictions on tissue anatomy than tetrahedral meshes while being able to mesh curved geometries contrary to hexahedral meshing. To evaluate the new approach, we compare CutFEM with a boundary element method (BEM) that distinguishes three tissue compartments and a 6-compartment hexahedral FEM in an n = 19 group study of somatosensory evoked fields (SEF). The neural generators of the 20 ms post-stimulus SEF components (M20) are reconstructed using both an unregularized and a regularized inversion approach. Changing the forward model resulted in reconstruction differences of about 1 centimeter in location and considerable differences in orientation. The tested 6-compartment FEM approaches significantly increase the goodness of fit to the measured data compared with the 3-compartment BEM. They also demonstrate higher quasi-radial contributions for sources below the gyral crowns. Furthermore, CutFEM improves source separability compared with both other approaches. We conclude that head models with 6 compartments rather than 3 and the new CutFEM approach are valuable additions to MEG source reconstruction, in particular for sources that are predominantly radial.
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.