Back

Repetition suppression of motor cortex may predict responsiveness to high-frequency rTMS in chronic pain

Kariminezhad, S.; Vaalto, S.; Saisanen, L.; Kononen, M.; Kirveskari, E.; Mannila, V.; Hypponen, J.; Laine, J.; Karhu, J.; Julkunen, P.

2025-08-16 neurology
10.1101/2025.08.12.25332182 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundHigh-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been reported to yield promising, albeit variable, outcomes in chronic pain therapy and management. A factor contributing to the treatment success is individual neuroplastic capacity. Neuroplasticity can be assessed in various ways with TMS, e.g. through neural repetition suppression (RS) based on habituation. The present study aimed to evaluate the TMS-induced RS in patients with chronic pain, undergoing conventional rTMS treatment, and observing whether RS is indicative of the experienced analgesic effects. MethodsTwenty-one patients received standard 10-Hz rTMS treatment in five or ten daily sessions. Twenty RS trials, each consisting of four TMS pulses given 1 s apart, were given and assessed for motor evoked potentials (MEPs) before the first rTMS therapy session. For analysis purpose, the RS paradigm was evaluated through two states: 1) "dynamic" state (spontaneous excitability), first to second pulse, and 2) "stable" state (suppressed excitability), suppressed responses induced by second to fourth pulse. Analgesic effect from rTMS was assessed using Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and painDETECT screening questionnaire, both conducted before and after the rTMS treatment. ResultsBoth the dynamic and the stable state RS exhibited good accuracy (0.789 - 0.944) in identifying patients showing analgesic effect in response to rTMS. Also, significantly greater suppression of MEPs (p<0.05) were observed in the RS between those who benefitted from rTMS and those who did not. ConclusionsThese indicative findings provide support for the potential of RS to set a premise for improved individualized neuromodulation treatments.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Pain Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
34.4%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.7%
3
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
5
Pain
78 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
6
Journal of Neurotrauma
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.4%
8
Frontiers in Neurology
102 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
9
Brain Sciences
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
10
Experimental Brain Research
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
European Journal of Pain
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
12
Neuroscience
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
Behavioural Brain Research
77 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
14
The Journal of Headache and Pain
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
15
European Journal of Neuroscience
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Brain and Behavior
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
Clinical Neurophysiology
56 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
19
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Neuroscience
256 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
Neurosurgery
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
25
The Journal of Pain
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%
26
Brain Stimulation
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
European Journal of Pharmacology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%