ArticleJAMA network open2025
Personalized Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Behavioral and Neurophysiologic Outcomes.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying treatment response classes to transcranial direct current stimulation from daily ecological momentary assessment patterns in patients with depression.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Trial
- Intra- and Inter-Session Reliability of Average- and Trial-Level Motor Evoked Potential Amplitudes.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Sex Does Matter! The Influence of Sex on Outcomes of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS).Cells · 2026Review
- Machine learning and individual variability in electrical field characteristics predict tDCS treatment response for anxiety in older adults in the ACT trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Prefrontal Hemodynamics Underlie the Synergistic Effect of Tai Chi Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Memory in Patients with MCI: An Exploratory fNIRS Study.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is emerging as a home-based intervention for neuropsychiatric conditions and cognitive enhancement. However, its effectiveness is limited by interindividual variability, as fixed-dose protocols have failed to account for anatomic differences influencing current delivery to targeted regions and treatment outcome. While computational modeling supports individualized dosing to improve consistency, experimental validation remains limited. Objective: To compare the behavioral and neurophysiologic outcomes of fixed-dose vs individualized-dose tDCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study using a within-participant, double-masked, crossover design was conducted from January 1, to March 31, 2024, at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences in India. Adult participants (aged 21-35 years) received 3 sessions of tDCS (fixed-dose, individualized-dose, and sham stimulation) in counterbalanced order. Individualized doses were calculated using a custom-built simulation toolbox. Main Outcomes and Measures: Behavioral performance was measured using reaction time during a rapid naming task. Neurophysiologic effects were assessed using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) recorded before and after stimulation. Linear mixed-effects models were used for the statistical analysis. Results: Sixteen right-hand-dominant, bilingual English-Dravidian speakers (mean [SD] age, 23.1 [3.9] years; 8 female [50%]) were included. Individualized-dose tDCS associated with significantly greater reaction time improvement over sham (estimated marginal mean [SD]: before, 753.0 [41.1] ms; after, 619.0 [41.1] ms; change [Δ] = 133.6 ms; SE, 10.2 ms; z score ratio, 13.09) compared with fixed-dose tDCS (before, 694.0 [41.1] ms; after, 680.0 [41.1] ms; Δ = 14.6 ms; SE, 10.1 ms; z score ratio, 1.45). Variability was lower with individualized-dose stimulation (coefficient of variation, -1.14 vs 0.39 fixed vs individualized dose, respectively). Sex-stratified analyses showed that women had improvements with both fixed (Δ = 58.0 ms; P = .003) and individualized (Δ = 113.8 ms; P < .001) stimulation, while men had improvement only with individualized tDCS (Δ = 153.4 ms; P < .001). Seven participants (5 men and 2 women) converted from nonresponders to responders with individualized dosing. For MEPs, individualized-dose tDCS showed greater poststimulation amplitude increases over sham (β [SE], 0.91 [0.23]), although fixed-dose tDCS poststimulation amplitude was smaller, but significant (β [SE], 0.56 [0.23]; P = .02) and showed a higher percentage change (β [SE], 144.26% [55.74%]; P = .01) and reduced variability (coefficient of variation, -0.79 vs 1.12 [fixed]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study, dose-controlled tDCS was associated with consistent behavioral and neurophysiologic improvement, highlighting its translational importance in the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders.
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.