ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Proof-of-concept validation of noninvasive detection of cortical spreading depolarization with high-resolution direct current-electroencephalography with future device recommendations.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 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.
- Spreading depolarisation (SD): a potential underlying mechanism in functional neurological disorder (FND).BMJ case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cortical spreading depolarization (SD) is increasingly recognized as a major contributor to secondary brain injury. Noninvasive SD monitoring would enable the institution of SD-based therapeutics. Our primary objective is to establish proof-of-concept validation that scalp direct-current (DC)-potentials can provide noninvasive SD detection by comparing scalp DC-shifts from a high-density electrode array to SDs detected by gold-standard electrocorticography (ECoG). Our secondary objective is to assess usability and artifact tolerance. An 83 x 58 mm thermoplastic elastomer array with 29 6-mm diameter Ag/AgCl 1-cm spaced electrodes, the CerebroPatch™ Proof-of-Concept Prototype, was adhesively placed on the forehead with an intervening electrode gel interface to record DC-electroencephalography (DC-EEG) in normal volunteers and severe acute brain injury patients in the neuro-intensive care unit some with and some without invasive ECoG electrodes. The scalp and ECoG voltages were collected by a Moberg® Advanced ICU Amplifier. Artifacts were visually identified and usability issues were recorded. SD was scored on ECoG based on DC-shifts with associated high-frequency suppression and propagation. A six-parameter Gaussian plus quadratic baseline model was used to estimate ECoG and scalp electrode time-courses and scalp-voltage heat-map movies. The similarity of the noninvasive scalp and invasive ECoG DC-shift time-courses was compared via the Gaussian fit parameters and confirmed if the Coefficient-of-Determination was >0.80. Usability and artifact issues obscured most scalp Prototype device data of the 140 ECoG-coded SDs during 11 days in one sub-arachnoid hemorrhage patient. Twenty-six of these DC-shifts were in readable, artifact-free portions of scalp recordings and 24 of these had a >0.80 Coefficient-of-Determination (0.98 [0.02], median [IQR]) between invasive ECoG and noninvasive Prototype device DC-shifts. Reconstructed heat-map movies of the scalp DC-potentials showed a 5-cm extent, -460 µV peak region that persisted for ~70 seconds. These data suggest that these scalp DC-shifts (peak -457 ± 69 µV [mean ± StD], full-width-half-maximum 70.9 ± 5.92 seconds, area 18.7 ± 2.76 cm
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.