Moving towards precision TMS? Evaluating individual differences and reproducibility of personalized stimulation targets in UK Biobank
Zhao, Y.; Zhao, Y.-J.; Cui, H.; Bethlehem, R. A. I.; Voon, V.
Show abstract
ObjectivePersonalized transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) targeting, guided by functional connectivity (FC), shows potential in treating depression. The present study aims to map individual FC peak location using UK Biobank, to evaluate individual differences and reproducibility of FC-based targets. MethodsWe analyzed UK Biobank resting-state fMRI (rfMRI) of 35,423 participants, identifying individual FC peak locations on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) that functionally connected to the subcallosal cingulate, amygdala, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, respectively. Euclidean distance between each participants individual peak and group-average peak was calculated. With follow-up rfMRI of 1341 participants, within-subject FC peak location changes were calculated. We also compared common TMS targets and random locations for their median distance to individual peaks in a permutation test. ResultsSeed-based FC analyses revealed large differences in the individual FC peak location on DLPFC: the mean distance from the individual peaks to group-average peak ranged from 14.24 to 29.92mm; 70% to 94% of participants were >10mm away from the group-average peak and potentially located outside of the TMS effective area with common TMS coils. Similar variability was observed in within-subject peak locations across two fMRI assessments. Common TMS targets and the group-average FC peak showed no significant difference in median distances to individual FC peaks when compared to random locations. ConclusionsFC peak location shows wide inter- and intra-individual variability. We emphasize a role for individualized TMS neuronavigation targeting but emphasize the need for more reliable biomarker studies.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Glutamate-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging (GluCEST) Detects Effects of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to the Motor Cortex 96%
- A Systematic Review and Large-Scale tES and TMS Electric Field Modeling Study Reveals How Outcome Measure Selection Alters Results in a Person- and Montage-Specific Manner 95%
- Effects of tDCS Dose and Electrode Montage on regional cerebral blood flow and motor behavior 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of cortical targets for modulating function supported by the human hippocampal network 97%
- Are we really targeting and stimulating DLPFC by placing transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) electrodes over F3/F4? 95%
- Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Modulate fMRI Drug Cue Reactivity in Methamphetamine Users: A Randomized Clinical Trial 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Unraveling Neural Complexity: Exploring Brain Entropy to Yield Mechanistic Insight in Neuromodulation Therapies for Tobacco Use Disorder 95%
- Network-based Near-Scalp Personalized Brain Stimulation Targets 94%
- A comparison of fMRI presurgical mapping techniques with intraoperative brain mapping-based validation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- TMS-induced modulation of brain networks and its associations to rTMS treatment for depression: a concurrent fMRI-EEG-TMS study 96%
- Hemodynamic changes in response to excitatory and inhibitory modulations by transcranial magnetic stimulation at the human sensorimotor cortex 95%
- tDCS induced GABA change is associated with the simulated electric field in M1, an effect mediated by grey matter volume in the MRS voxel 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Neural effects of TMS trains on the human prefrontal cortex 95%
- Group and Individual Level Variations between Symmetric and Asymmetric DLPFC Montages for tDCS over Large Scale Brain Network Nodes 95%
- Short periods of bipolar anodal TDCS induce no instantaneous dose-dependent increase in cerebral blood flow in the targeted human motor cortex 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.