MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410503407 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaf090.0284

0284 Transcranial Direct Current Brain Stimulation Is Well Tolerated During Sleep Deprivation

2025· article· en· W4410503407 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tracy Jill Doty, Sidney Allotey-Addo, C Y Fong, Isabelle Kennealy, Kajsa Carlsson, Lonique Moore, Samantha M. Riedy, Thomas J. Balkin, Tad T. Brunyé, John Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationMedicineSleep (system call)Sleep deprivationAnesthesiaStimulationBrain stimulationPsychologyNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineCircadian rhythmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to the prefrontal cortex (PFC) improves performance in well-rested individuals. We assessed the tolerability of this technology during sleep loss, associated with a reduced pain threshold, to ensure its usefulness during extended periods of wakefulness. Methods During a four-night stay healthy participants were given a two hour sleep opportunity at 2300 the first night followed by 46 hours of sleep deprivation (SD). There were a total of four stimulations for 10 min during the SD period (1.5, 2.75, 25.25, and 26.5 hours into SD). The tDCS group received 9 min of sustained 2mA stimulation following a 30 sec ramp up and ending with a 30 sec ramp down, and the sham group received only the 30 sec ramp up and down at beginning and end of the stimulation period. Participants rated the sensation of stimulation (from 0-9) on the Thermal Sensation Scale (TSS) at 30 sec into stimulation and after stimulation termination. Stimulation was immediately stopped if a rating was seven or higher. Results Analysis of 17 healthy individuals (nine in the tDCS group, eight in the sham group) revealed that stimulation was well tolerated across all four stimulation sessions for both groups (average TSS score during stimulation = 3.00 ± 1.60, after stimulation = 1.72 ± 1.34). TSS scores during stimulation increased with repeated stimulation sessions and longer extended wakefulness (main effect of session p=0.02), but consistently remained well below the cutoff for stimulation termination within each session (average TSS score during stimulation for 3rd and 4th sessions = 3.06 ± 1.48 and 3.82 ± 1.38, respectively). TSS scores did not differ between groups (effect of group during stimulation p=0.07 and after stimulation p=0.72). Conclusion These findings indicate that PFC tDCS during SD is well tolerated by healthy individuals. Although TSS scores increased with sleep loss, these ratings remained low and comparable for the tDCS and sham groups (suggesting that participants remained blinded during the study). These findings demonstrate that PFC tDCS can be administered safely and comfortably during sleep loss. Support (if any) Military Operational Medicine Research Program, Defense Health Agency

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207