MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998565128 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2019.12.025

Safety and tolerability of transcranial magnetic and direct current stimulation in children: Prospective single center evidence from 3.5 million stimulations

2019· article· en· W2998565128 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationChildren's Hospital FoundationHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary
KeywordsTolerabilityTranscranial magnetic stimulationTranscranial direct-current stimulationMedicineBrain stimulationNeurostimulationDeep transcranial magnetic stimulationAnesthesiaPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAdverse effectStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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