ReviewBrain sciences2026
Precision in Delivery, Variability in Response: A Multiscale Mechanistic Framework for Neuronavigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.
Review in Brain sciences, 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) initiates a cascade from intracranial electric-field exposure through neural recruitment and plasticity to distributed network responses. Neuronavigation improves the geometric reproducibility of delivery but does not guarantee equivalent cortical exposure or target engagement. This narrative review integrates these levels within an operational framework for precision TMS.
methodsSix domain-specific PubMed searches covering 1 January 1985 to 31 July 2026 were supplemented by Google Scholar and citation tracking. A documented rerun on 17 August 2026 yielded 6430 records (5617 unique after cross-query deduplication). Evidence was synthesized narratively; no quantitative synthesis or formal risk-of-bias assessment was performed.
resultsNeuronavigation improves geometric precision by stabilizing target definition and coil pose, whereas individualized electric-field models estimate intracranial exposure. Neither establishes biological precision, which also depends on neuronal orientation, brain state, circuit architecture, medication, and behavior. Motor-system measures are not validated as universal biomarkers for nonmotor cortex, and no single validated biomarker captures TMS-induced plasticity. Convergent, controlled multimodal evidence may strengthen inference about target engagement; adaptive and closed-loop approaches remain experimental.
conclusionsGeometric delivery, modeled exposure, biological engagement, and durable functional or clinical benefit require separate validation. Spatial accuracy alone does not establish clinical value.
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.