ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2026
Precision, accuracy, and reliability of a threshold hunting method for transcranial magnetic stimulation.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate precision, accuracy, and reliability of a threshold hunting method to estimate resting motor threshold (RMT) using parameter estimation by sequential testing and maximum likelihood estimation (PEST-MLE). Methods: In 53 healthy participants, single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to estimate RMT with cutoff values of 0.05 mV and 0.2 mV. RMT was inferred from 30-trial PEST-MLE algorithm for at maximum two days with two estimation sessions per day, comprising Sessions 1 to 4. Precision and accuracy were assessed within each session. Repeatability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), reproducibility coefficient (RC), and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results: For both 0.05 mV and 0.2 mV, 18 trials were needed to have good accuracy. ICC greater than 0.8 was achieved for within-day comparison but the ICC of between-day comparison was lower. RC and SEM were around 10 % and 5 %, respectively. Conclusions: At 18th trial the estimations were converged in terms of precision and accuracy, and good reliability was achieved at that stage. Significance: RMT estimation with the PEST-MLE is a rapid and reliable approach that can be implemented for future clinical and scientific studies.
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.