ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2023
Tracking the current in the Alzheimer's brain - Systematic differences between patients and healthy controls in the electric field induced by tDCS.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methods of Computational Modelling in Studies of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) in Adults to Inform Protocols for Tinnitus Treatment: A Scoping Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Photobiomodulation in Improving Cognitive Abilities for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
Background: Several studies on patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to enhance neural excitability in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC). Interindividual differences in brain anatomy in AD patients pose a challenge to efficiently target the lDLPFC using scalp-based coordinates, calling for new and more precise tDCS protocols. Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore how AD-related neuropathology affects the tDCS-induced electric field (EF) across different DLPFC montages using computational modeling. Method: Forty-eight realistic head models were created from structural magnetic resonance scans of AD patients and healthy controls collected from a publicly available database. We compared the tDCS-induced EF in different montages applied in the literature, in addition to a high definition (HD)-tDCS montage centered at electrode F3. Results: There was an overall global reduction in EF strength in the patient group, probably due to structural alterations that were also identified in the patient group. A widespread distribution of the EF was found across the frontal lobe for bipolar montages, while HD-tDCS yielded more focal stimulation, mainly restricted to the lDLPFC. Minor differences in the EF distribution were found when comparing the HD-tDCS montages. Conclusion: Neurodegenerative alterations present in patients with AD affect the magnitude, distribution and variability of the EF. HD-tDCS montages provide more focal stimulation of the target area, compared to bipolar montages with to pronounced group differences between AD patients and healthy matched controls. This finding poses substantial limitations to the comparison of cognitive effects of tDCS both between patients and controls and within patients at different stages of disease progression.
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.