Trial reportFrontiers in neurology
White matter predictors of cerebellar tDCS treatment effects in aphasia rehabilitation.
Trial report in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02901574 (Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Augment Chronic Aphasia Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Augment Chronic Aphasia Treatment
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Probing the linguistic cerebellum: a qualitative review of the effects of cerebellar neurostimulation on language processing.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Neuromodulation for post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: established cortical stimulation and emerging network-based targets.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with language therapy can aid in chronic aphasia recovery, but the neural mechanisms and biomarkers of treatment efficacy remain uncertain. Methods: In this secondary analysis of data from a previously conducted clinical trial, we used a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, within-subject crossover design with a study sample of 19 participants with post-stroke aphasia. We assessed the degree to which baseline properties of cerebro-cerebellar white matter tracts can predict or moderate longitudinal treatment effects at three time points: post-treatment, 2 weeks post-treatment, and 2 months post-treatment. Tract properties were measured by fractional anisotropy (FA) and mean diffusivity (MD) from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We also tested whether there are differential effects between trained and untrained language tasks and between cerebellar tDCS polarity (anodal and cathodal). Results: Baseline measures of tracts connecting the left lesioned cortex to the right posterolateral cerebellum (stimulation target) influenced treatment gains for untrained tasks, relative to sham control. In contrast, for the trained task, treatment gains were influenced by baseline measures of tracts connecting the non-stimulated left cerebellum with the contralateral right cerebral cortex. Although there were no consistent effects from cerebellar tDCS polarity, a highly consistent pattern emerged across all tasks and tracts. Specifically, language improvements were predicted by a baseline tract profile (i.e., higher FA and lower MD) typically associated with higher white matter integrity, especially within the context of stroke-induced white matter decline. Discussion: These findings corroborate the potential for baseline tract properties as a biomarker of treatment efficacy and support the notion that adjuvant (cerebellar tDCS + language) therapy preferentially benefits individuals with relatively preserved structural connections within functionally relevant networks. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT02901574).
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.