SynthesisEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2026
Brain stimulation and VEGF concentrations: meta-analysis, meta-regression, and hierarchical cluster analysis of 200 correlations.
Synthesis in European archives of psychiatry and clinical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies on VEGF responses to brain stimulation (BS) are inconsistent.
methodsWe systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed these data.
resultsOverall meta-analyses for the three main models (time, group, time×group) showed no significant effects (p>0.05). Given the high heterogeneity across interventions and populations, we conducted extensive exploratory subgroup analyses to generate hypotheses. These revealed several within-subgroup effects, but they were based on limited data constraining their interpretability, with several single studies and others on 2-4 observations. For time-difference analyses, higher post-BS VEGF emerged in older rTMS patients (k=4, g=2.14), responders (k=3, g=0.58), and remitters (k=2, g=0.56), but not in other subgroups. Group-difference analyses showed higher post-BS VEGF in tDCS (k=1, g=1.01) and DBS (k=1, g=6.03) groups vs. controls; at baseline, non-responders had lower VEGF than controls (k=3, g=-0.31). Time×group analyses favored rTMS over non-rTMS (k=3, g=1.95), responders over non-responders (k=4, g=0.54), and remitters over non-remitters (k=3, g=0.72). Meta-regression (k=19) identified age as a major variability source (β=1.12, R²=88.9%). HCA ranked the top eight VEGF correlates: PANSS, MADRS, HDRS/HAM-D, HAMA, treatment outcome, age, SHAPS, and BPRS-5.
conclusionsThese significant subgroup findings derive from post-hoc exploratory analyses with small sample sizes and should not be interpreted as confirmatory. We provide an early meta-analytical framework, but the small number of observations per BS technique, psychiatric condition, and timepoint precludes definitive conclusions. Future updates with larger, more homogenous datasets are essential to rigorously test whether VEGF can serve as a reliable biomarker of differential BS responses. These exploratory results are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42565988What 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.