ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2025
Temporal Dynamics of Moderate-Intensity Transcranial Static Magnetic Stimulation in Young Adults.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2025. 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.
- Numerical simulation of transcranial static magnetic fields for the treatment of global epilepsy in children.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcranial static magnetic stimulation (tSMS) as a new noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique is gradually gaining widespread attention. This study aims to investigate the effects of tSMS on the excitability of the somatosensory cortex in healthy adults. Methods: Forty healthy volunteers were recruited and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (tSMS) or the control group (sham), with 20 participants in each. The intervention group received 30 min of 180 mT neodymium magnet stimulation at the C3 site, while the control group underwent sham stimulation with a non-magnetic cylinder. Electrodes were placed at the C3 and Fz sites according to the 10-20 system. Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) N20 component amplitudes were measured at baseline, immediately after stimulation (0 - 2 min), 5 - 7 min, and 10 - 12 min post-stimulation to evaluate the effects on cortical excitability. Results: Following 30 min of static magnetic stimulation, the SEP N20 component amplitude at the C3 site in the tSMS group decreased by an average of 13.2%, with a significant reduction of 13.7% within 0 - 2 min post-stimulation (P < 0.001). This decrease persisted at 5 - 7 min, with a reduction of 16.6% (P < 0.001), and diminished to 9.3% at 10 - 12 min (P = 0.034). Significant differences were observed between time points and groups (P = 0.003). In the control group, no significant changes were observed in SEP N20 component amplitude throughout the experiment (P = 0.382), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.195). Conclusions: These results confirm that a single session of tSMS effectively inhibits cortical excitability in the somatosensory cortex of young adults. This finding underscores the potential of tSMS as a promising, noninvasive brain stimulation technique with broad future 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.