Safety Evaluation of Employing Temporal Interference Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation in Human Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal interference transcranial alternating current stimulation (TI-tACS) is a new technique of noninvasive brain stimulation. Previous studies have shown the effectiveness of TI-tACS in stimulating brain areas in a selective manner. However, its safety in modulating human brain neurons is still untested. In this study, 38 healthy adults were recruited to undergo a series of neurological and neuropsychological measurements regarding safety concerns before and after active (2 mA, 20/70 Hz, 30 min) or sham (0 mA, 0 Hz, 30 min) TI-tACS. The neurological and neuropsychological measurements included electroencephalography (EEG), serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT), an abbreviated version of the California Computerized Assessment Package (A-CalCAP), a revised version of the Visual Analog Mood Scale (VAMS-R), a self-assessment scale (SAS), and a questionnaire about adverse effects (AEs). We found no significant difference between the measurements of the active and sham TI-tACS groups. Meanwhile, no serious or intolerable adverse effects were reported or observed in the active stimulation group of 19 participants. These results support that TI-tACS is safe and tolerable in terms of neurological and neuropsychological functions and adverse effects for use in human brain stimulation studies under typical transcranial electric stimulation (TES) conditions (2 mA, 20/70 Hz, 30 min).
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".