Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39637241›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2024

Circuits and mechanisms for TMS-induced corticospinal waves: Connecting sensitivity analysis to the network graph.

Gene J Yu, Federico Ranieri, Vincenzo Di Lazzaro, Marc A Sommer, Angel V Peterchev, Warren M Grill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Large-Scale Mechanistic Models of Brain Circuits with Biophysically and Morphologically Detailed Neurons.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  7. 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

6 authors.

Gene J YuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8154-4119
Federico RanieriNeurology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6530-1857
Vincenzo Di LazzaroDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psychiatry, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Roma, Italy.
Marc A SommerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5061-763X
Angel V PeterchevDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4385-065X
Warren M GrillDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Biology and Biophysics of the Cortical Response to Transcranial Magnetic StimulationR01NS117405 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI PETERCHEV, ANGEL V, SOMMER, MARC A · 2020 to 2024
$3.3M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS117405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive, FDA-cleared treatment for neuropsychiatric disorders with broad potential for new applications, but the neural circuits that are engaged during TMS are still poorly understood. Recordings of neural activity from the corticospinal tract provide a direct readout of the response of motor cortex to TMS, and therefore a new opportunity to model neural circuit dynamics. The study goal was to use epidural recordings from the cervical spine of human subjects to develop a computational model of a motor cortical macrocolumn through which the mechanisms underlying the response to TMS, including direct and indirect waves, could be investigated. An in-depth sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify important pathways, and machine learning was used to identify common circuit features among these pathways. Sensitivity analysis identified neuron types that preferentially contributed to single corticospinal waves. Single wave preference could be predicted using the average connection probability of all possible paths between the activated neuron type and L5 pyramidal tract neurons (PTNs). For these activations, the total conduction delay of the shortest path to L5 PTNs determined the latency of the corticospinal wave. Finally, there were multiple neuron type activations that could preferentially modulate a particular corticospinal wave. The results support the hypothesis that different pathways of circuit activation contribute to different corticospinal waves with participation of both excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Moreover, activation of both afferents to the motor cortex as well as specific neuron types within the motor cortex initiated different I-waves, and the results were interpreted to propose the cortical origins of afferents that may give rise to certain I-waves. The methodology provides a workflow for performing computationally tractable sensitivity analyses on complex models and relating the results to the network structure to both identify and understand mechanisms underlying the response to acute stimulation.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalMotor CortexPyramidal TractsTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultComputational BiologyComputer SimulationEvoked Potentials, MotorFemaleHumansMachine LearningMaleNerve NetNeurons

Identifiers

PMID39637241
PMCPMC11651605

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.