Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation–Induced Heart-Brain Coupling: Implications for Site Selection and Frontal Thresholding—Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neurocardiac-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses repetitive TMS (rTMS)-induced heart rate deceleration to confirm activation of the frontal-vagal pathway. Here, we test a novel neurocardiac-guided TMS method that utilizes heart-brain coupling (HBC) to quantify rTMS-induced entrainment of the interbeat interval as a function of TMS cycle time. Because prior neurocardiac-guided TMS studies indicated no association between motor and frontal excitability threshold, we also introduce the approach of using HBC to establish individualized frontal excitability thresholds for optimally dosing frontal TMS. Methods: In studies 1A and 1B, we validated intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS)-induced HBC (2 seconds iTBS on; 8 seconds off: HBC = 0.1 Hz) in 15 (1A) and 22 (1B) patients with major depressive disorder from 2 double-blind placebo-controlled studies. In study 2, HBC was measured in 10 healthy subjects during the 10-Hz "Dash" protocol (5 seconds 10-Hz on; 11 seconds off: HBC = 0.0625 Hz) applied with 15 increasing intensities to 4 evidence-based TMS locations. Results: = .002) was observed at 0.0625 Hz in a site-specific manner. Conclusions: We demonstrated rTMS-induced HBC as a function of TMS cycle time for 2 commonly used clinical protocols (iTBS and 10-Hz Dash). These preliminary results supported individual site specificity and dose-response effects, indicating that this is a potentially valuable method for clinical rTMS site stratification and frontal thresholding. Further research should control for TMS side effects, such as pain of stimulation, to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 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".