Safety and Tolerability of tDCS across Different Ages, Sexes, Diagnoses, and Amperages: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique with substantial evidence for its safety and tolerability in adults. However, less than 5% of published tDCS research is in pediatrics. Our primary objective was to investigate tDCS safety, tolerability, and acceptability in a sample of children and adults. We hypothesized that children and adults would be equal with regard to tDCS safety, tolerability, and acceptability. We tested this hypothesis using a Bayesian approach. Sixty participants aged 6-45 (balanced for sex) participated in a randomized double-blind controlled trial. They were randomly assigned to two ten-minute tDCS sessions with varying amperages and electrode locations. The primary outcome measure of this study was the intensity of 13 potential side effects evaluated at six different time points spanning two weeks. Independent sample Bayes factor tests were conducted between children/adults, males/females, clinical/healthy, and low/high amperage groups. As predicted, there was moderate support for the null hypothesis in all between-group analyses. There were no serious adverse events or dropouts, and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 23. This study provided evidence supporting the overall short-term safety, tolerability, and acceptability of tDCS including amperages up to 2 mA and different electrode placements.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".