MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414976859 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.10.007

ITRUSST consensus on biophysical safety for transcranial ultrasound stimulation

2025· preprint· en· W4414976859 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Aubry, David Attali, Mark E. Schafer, Elsa Fouragnan, Charles F. Caskey, Robert Chen, Ghazaleh Darmani, Ellen J. Bubrick, Jérôme Sallet, Christopher R. Butler, Charlotte J. Stagg, Miriam C. Klein-Flügge, Seung‐Schik Yoo, Christy K. Holland, Bradley E. Treeby, Eleanor Martin, Lennart Verhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersHORIZON EUROPE European Research CouncilHORIZON EUROPE European Innovation CouncilNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringEuropean Research CouncilWellcome TrustFondation Bettencourt SchuellerBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilNational Institute of Mental HealthBrigham Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and InnovationNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeFocused Ultrasound FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of CincinnatiAdvanced Research and Invention AgencyNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCitizens United for Research in EpilepsyHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeAgence Nationale de la RechercheEpilepsy FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMechanical indexUltrasoundTranscranial DopplerIndex (typography)Set (abstract data type)Brain stimulationAdverse effectTranscranial direct-current stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) is an emerging technology for non-invasive brain stimulation. The International Transcranial Ultrasonic Stimulation Safety and Standards consortium (ITRUSST) has established consensus on considerations for nonsignificant biophysical risk of TUS, drawing upon the literature and established regulations for biomedical devices. Here, we assume the application of TUS to individuals without contraindications, compromised thermoregulation, vascular vulnerabilities, or administered ultrasound contrast agents. In this context, we present a concise yet comprehensive set of levels for nonsignificant risks of TUS application. For mechanical effects, it is non-significant risk if the mechanical index (MI) or the mechanical index for transcranial application (MI tc ) does not exceed 1.9. For thermal effects, it is non-significant risk if any of the following three levels are met: the peak temperature rise does not exceed 2°C or the peak absolute temperature does not exceed 39°C, assuming a baseline temperature of 37°C, the thermal dose does not exceed 2 CEM43 in brain tissue, 16 CEM43 in bone tissue, and 21 CEM43 in skin tissue, or specific values of the thermal index (TI) for a given exposure time. This report reflects a consensus expert opinion and can inform, but not replace, regulatory guidelines or official international standards. Similarly, this consensus can inform, but not replace, ethical evaluation, which weighs the total burden, risks, and benefits of the proposed action. The stated levels are not safety limits per se, and further data is needed to establish the threshold for significant risk. We review literature relevant to our considerations and discuss limitations and future developments of our approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0100.006
Research integrity0.0220.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.011

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations43
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207