Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42392442›Full record

ArticleBrain stimulation

Empirical limitations of current low-intensity focused ultrasound simulation platforms.

Sierra D Brandts, Brooke R Staveland, Ananya Madhusudhan, Ryan T Ash, Tommaso Di Ianni, Leo P Sugrue, Andrew D Krystal, Khaled Moussawi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sierra D BrandtsDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Brooke R StavelandDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Ananya MadhusudhanDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Ryan T AshDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Tommaso Di IanniDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Leo P SugrueDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Andrew D KrystalDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA.
Khaled MoussawiDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, 94158, USA. Electronic address: khaled.moussawi@ucsf.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscranial low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) is an emerging tool for noninvasive neuromodulation, with potential therapeutic applications across a range of neuropsychiatric disorders. As the field advances toward clinical translation, individualized simulations of sonication parameters are critical for estimating dosing to ensure safety, efficacy, and reproducibility. Currently, k-Plan (Brainbox Ltd.) and BabelBrain (open-source) are two widely used software packages for sonication simulation, yet their outputs have not been empirically compared. While CT scans remain the gold standard for capturing fine anatomical details of the skull, their use carries radiation risk. As an alternative, algorithms generating MRI-based pseudo-CTs have been developed to approximate skull bone properties.

objectiveIn this study, we directly evaluated the consistency of simulation results from the two platforms, k-Plan and BabelBrain. We also examined the impact of skull modeling using CT vs. pseudo-CT on LIFU simulation results.

methodsWe compared LIFU simulation results between the two platforms when applied to the same individuals, trajectories, and using the same sonication protocol parameters. To assess the validity of using pseudo-CTs for simulations, we also compared simulation outputs generated using CT versus pseudo-CT inputs.

resultsOur results reveal substantial discrepancies between software platforms (k-Plan vs. BabelBrain), underscoring the need for additional ground-truth validation of current sonication simulation software, particularly regarding how simulations estimate the skull's acoustic properties, a main limitation of this study. Additional discrepancies between CT and pseudo-CT skull modeling approaches highlight the need to further optimize pseudo-CT algorithms before widespread clinical adoption.

Indexed as

BrainComputer SimulationSkullAlgorithmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingSoftwareTomography, X-Ray ComputedBabelBrainBrainsightFocused ultrasoundk-PlanLIFUPseudo-CT

Identifiers

PMID42392442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.