MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002925956 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00739

Pediatric stroke and transcranial direct current stimulation: methods for rational individualized dose optimization

2014· article· en· W2002925956 on OpenAlexaff
Bernadette T. Gillick, Adam Kirton, Jason B. Carmel, Preet Minhas, Marom Bikson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeClinical and Translational Science Institute, University of MinnesotaAir Force Research LaboratoryNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of DefenseUniversity of MinnesotaNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesWallace H. Coulter Foundation
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationTolerabilityMedicineStroke (engine)DosingPost-hoc analysisBrain stimulationAdverse effectClinical trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been investigated mainly in adults and doses may not be appropriate in pediatric applications. In perinatal stroke where potential applications are promising, rational adaptation of dosage for children remains under investigation. OBJECTIVE: Construct child-specific tDCS dosing parameters through case study within a perinatal stroke tDCS safety and feasibility trial. METHODS: 10-year-old subject with a diagnosis of presumed perinatal ischemic stroke and hemiparesis was identified. T1 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans used to derive computerized model for current flow and electrode positions. Workflow using modeling results and consideration of dosage in previous clinical trials was incorporated. Prior ad hoc adult montages vs. de novo optimized montages provided distinct risk benefit analysis. Approximating adult dose required consideration of changes in both peak brain current flow and distribution which further tradeoff between maximizing efficacy and adding safety factors. Electrode size, position, current intensity, compliance voltage, and duration were controlled independently in this process. RESULTS: Brain electric fields modeled and compared to values previously predicted models (Datta et al., 2011; Minhas et al., 2012). Approximating conservative brain current flow patterns and intensities used in previous adult trials for comparable indications, the optimal current intensity established was 0.7 mA for 10 min with a tDCS C3/C4 montage. Specifically 0.7 mA produced comparable peak brain current intensity of an average adult receiving 1.0 mA. Electrode size of 5 × 7 cm(2) with 1.0 mA and low-voltage tDCS was employed to maximize tolerability. Safety and feasibility confirmed with subject tolerating the session well and no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rational approaches to dose customization, with steps informed by computational modeling, may improve guidance for pediatric stroke tDCS trials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207