Human Studies of Transcranial Ultrasound neuromodulation: A systematic review of effectiveness and safety
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) is gaining traction as a safe and non-invasive technique in human studies. There has been a rapid increase in TUS human studies in recent years, with more than half of studies to date published after 2020. This rapid growth in the relevant body of literature necessitates comprehensive reviews to update clinicians and researchers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to review human studies with an emphasis on TUS devices, sonication parameters, outcome measures, results, and adverse effects, as well as highlight future directions of investigation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching the Web of Science and PubMed databases on January 12, 2022. Human studies of TUS were included. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were identified using focused/unfocused ultrasound devices. A total of 677 subjects belonging to diverse cohorts (i.e., healthy, chronic pain, dementia, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, depression) were enrolled. The stimulation effects vary in a sonication parameter-dependant fashion. Clinical, neurophysiological, radiological and histological outcome measures were assessed. No severe adverse effects were reported in any of the studies surveyed. Mild symptoms were observed in 3.4% (14/425) of the subjects, including headache, mood deterioration, scalp heating, cognitive problems, neck pain, muscle twitches, anxiety, sleepiness and pruritis. CONCLUSIONS: Although increasingly being used, TUS is still in its early phases. TUS can change short-term brain excitability and connectivity, induce long-term plasticity, and modulate behavior. New techniques should be used to further elucidate its underlying mechanisms and identify its application in novel populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it