ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique with promising application in the treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, its effectiveness is often limited by the high inter-subject variability of the induced effects, mainly attributable to individual anatomical differences, which are not considered in the design of the stimulation protocols. Among these, structural connectivity plays a crucial role but remains often overlooked in tDCS research. Objective-This study aims to evaluate how variations in structural connectivity influence the distribution of the electric field (EF) during tDCS session. In particular, we analyse how the inclusion of white matter anisotropy affects the EF distribution and spread compared to classical isotropic models, and how the strength of connection across cortical parcels affects the EF spread. Approach-The study proposes an advancement in the computational modelling of tDCS through the integration of white matter anisotropy into finite element method (FEM) simulations. By combining advanced computational approaches, we explore the relationship between EF strength and cortical connectivity. Main results-Neglecting white matter anisotropy in electromagnetic simulations lead to a relative error in EF magnitude greater than 10% and to an orientation error of the EF vector of almost 20 degrees. The DTI-informed simulations lead to a more focalized EF distribution, moreover it was found a positive and significant (
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.