ArticleActa neuropsychiatrica2025
Evaluating the safety profile of connectome-based repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Article in Acta neuropsychiatrica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNew developments in neuro-navigation and machine learning have allowed for personalised approaches to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to treat various neuropsychiatric disorders. One specific approach, known as the cingulum framework, identifies individualised brain parcellations from resting state fMRI based on a machine-learning algorithm. Theta burst stimulation, a more rapid form of rTMS, is then delivered for 25 sessions, 5 per day, over 5 days consecutively or spaced out over 10 days. Preliminary studies have documented this approach for various neurological and psychiatric ailments. However, the safety and tolerability of this approach are unclear.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study on 165 unique patients (202 target sets) treated with this personalised approach between January 2020 and December 2023.
resultsCommon side effects included fatigue (102/202, 50%), local muscle twitching (89/202, 43%), headaches (49/202, 23%), and discomfort (31/202, 17%), all transient. The top 10 unique parcellations commonly found in the target sets included L8av (52%), LPGs (28%), LTe1m (21%), RTe1m (18%), LPFM (17%), Ls6-8 (13%), Rs6-8 (9%), L46 (7%), L1 (6%), and L6v (6%). Fatigue was most common in target sets that contained R6v (6/6, 100%) and L8c (5/5, 100%). Muscle twitches were most common in target sets that contained RTGv (5/5, 100%) and LTGv (4/4, 100%).
conclusionThese side effects were all transient and well-tolerated. No serious side effects were recorded. Results suggested that individualised, connectome-guided rTMS is safe and contain side-effect profiles similar to other TMS approaches reported in the literature.
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.