ArticleThe journal of ECT2026
Cranial Sutures Alter Computational Models of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation.
Article in The journal of ECT, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundROAST (Realistic vOlumetric-Approach-based Simulator for Transcranial electric stimulation) has been increasingly utilized to inform studies of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES). The precision of ROAST is dependent on anatomical accuracy.
objectivesThe aims of the study were to compare using only T1 magnetic resonance images in ROAST (T1 model), with a combination of T1 and T2 magnetic resonance images (T1 and T2 model) and to model the electrical fields generated by tES with commonly used ECT montages: bitemporal, bifrontal, and right unilateral and varying the skull conductivities (based on the electrode position) and including cranial sutures.
methodsThe "T1 model" was selected for computational modeling. The skull conductivity was varied from the "default setting in ROAST" (0.01S/m) to that of temporal bone (0.0038S/m) and frontal bone (0.0126S/m). "Disc" electrodes (5 cm in diameter) were applied with 1 mA of current. "Pad" electrodes, 0.1 mm high and 40 mm wide, were positioned over the squamous suture, coronal suture and sagittal suture and the skull conductivity changed to approximate suture conductivity (0.32S/m).
resultsThe "T1 model" differed from the "T1 and T2 model," which resulted in variable electric fields reaching individual tissue layers. Changing skull conductivity and simulating the cranial sutures resulted in changes to the electric current reaching the cortical and subcortical structures with the later having a greater impact.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates the importance of anatomically accurate head models in ROAST computational modeling of tES. Varying the skull conductivity based on studies in vivo and including cranial sutures is imperative for more realistic predictions of electric field and reproducibility.
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.