The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2018.00358 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Islam Halawa, Amir Goldental, Yuichiro Shirota, Ido Kanter, Walter Paulus |
| Abstract |
Introduction: rTMS has been proven effective in the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions, with class A (definite efficacy) evidence for treatment of depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). The efficacy in stimulation protocols is, however, quite heterogeneous. Saturation of neuronal firing by HFrTMS without allowing time for recovery may lead to neuronal response failures (NRFs) that compromise the efficacy of stimulation with higher frequencies. Objectives: To examine the efficacy of different rTMS temporal stimulation patterns focusing on a possible upper stimulation limit related to response failures. Protocol patterns were derived from published clinical studies on therapeutic rTMS for depression and pain. They were compared with conduction failures in cell cultures. Methodology: From 57 papers using protocols rated class A for depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014) we extracted Inter-train interval (ITI), average frequency, total duration and total number of pulses and plotted them against the percent improvement on the outcome scale. Specifically, we compared 10 Hz trains with ITIs of 8 s (protocol A) and 26 s (protocol B) in vitro on cultured cortical neurons. Results: In the in vitro experiments, protocol A with 8-s ITIs resulted in more frequent response failures, while practically no response failures occurred with protocol B (26-s intervals). The HFrTMS protocol analysis exhibited no significant effect of ITIs on protocol efficiency. Discussion: In the neuronal culture, longer ITIs appeared to allow the neuronal response to recover. In the available human dataset on both depression and chronic pain, data concerning shorter ITIs is does not allow a significant conclusion. Significance: NRF may interfere with the efficacy of rTMS stimulation protocols when the average stimulation frequency is too high, proposing ITIs as a variable in rTMS protocol efficacy. Clinical trials are necessary to examine effect of shorter ITIs on the clinical outcome in a controlled setting. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 12% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,023,851
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#437
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,249
of 344,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.