Safety and tolerability of transcranial magnetic and direct current stimulation in children: Prospective single center evidence from 3.5 million stimulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive brain stimulation is being increasingly used to interrogate neurophysiology and modulate brain function. Despite the high scientific and therapeutic potential of non-invasive brain stimulation, experience in the developing brain has been limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and tolerability of non-invasive neurostimulation in children across diverse modalities of stimulation and pediatric populations. METHODS: A non-invasive brain stimulation program was established in 2008 at our pediatric, academic institution. Multi-disciplinary neurophysiological studies included single- and paired-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) methods. Motor mapping employed robotic TMS. Interventional trials included repetitive TMS (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Standardized safety and tolerability measures were completed prospectively by all participants. RESULTS: Over 10 years, 384 children underwent brain stimulation (median 13 years, range 0.8-18.0). Populations included typical development (n = 118), perinatal stroke/cerebral palsy (n = 101), mild traumatic brain injury (n = 121) neuropsychiatric disorders (n = 37), and other (n = 7). No serious adverse events occurred. Drop-outs were rare (<1%). No seizures were reported despite >100 participants having brain injuries and/or epilepsy. Tolerability between single and paired-pulse TMS (542340 stimulations) and rTMS (3.0 million stimulations) was comparable and favourable. TMS-related headache was more common in perinatal stroke (40%) than healthy participants (13%) but was mild and self-limiting. Tolerability improved over time with side-effect frequency decreasing by >50%. Robotic TMS motor mapping was well-tolerated though neck pain was more common than with manual TMS (33% vs 3%). Across 612 tDCS sessions including 92 children, tolerability was favourable with mild itching/tingling reported in 37%. CONCLUSIONS: Standard non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms are safe and well-tolerated in children and should be considered minimal risk. Advancement of applications in the developing brain are warranted. A new and improved pediatric NIBS safety and tolerability form is included.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".