ArticleScientific reports2026
Beam-F3 error analysis and validation of Neurally-F3 equations using realistic head models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Reducing Cranial Morphology Error in F3 Scalp Localization: Comparison of Heuristic and Regression-Based Methods.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Accurate localization of the F3 point is critical for non-invasive brain stimulation, particularly in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The Beam-F3 heuristic is widely adopted due to its simplicity, yet its accuracy across realistic cranial variations has not been systematically assessed. Here, we evaluated Beam-F3 against the standard F3 location defined by the 10-20 International System using 250 realistic head models representing diverse anatomies. Beam-F3 produced significant errors, with mean deviations of 5.59 ± 1.23 mm in female models and 6.09 ± 1.52 mm in male models. The Adjusted Beam-F3 method performed worse, with mean errors of 8.12 ± 1.96 mm in females and 8.96 ± 2.16 mm in males. To address these limitations, we developed sex-specific multiple linear regression equations, termed Neurally-F3, which retain the measurable scalp-distance methodology of Beam-F3. Cross-validation confirmed robustness (R
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.