Cited by 79Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Machine learning and individual variability in electric field characteristics predict tDCS treatment response

Open access
Albizu, Alejandro, Fang, Ruogu, Indahlastari, Aprinda, O’Shea, Andrew, Stolte, Skylar E., See, Kyle B., Boutzoukas, Emanuel M., Kraft, Jessica N. +2 more·2020·Brain Stimulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is widely investigated as a therapeutic tool to enhance cognitive function in older adults with and without neurodegenerative disease. Prior research demonstrates that electric current delivery to the brain can vary significantly across individuals. Quantification of this variability could enable person-specific optimization of tDCS outcomes. This pilot study used machine learning and MRI-derived electric field models to predict working memory improvements as a proof of concept for precision cognitive intervention. METHODS: Fourteen healthy older adults received 20 minutes of 2 mA tDCS stimulation (F3/F4) during a two-week cognitive training intervention. Participants performed an N-back working memory task pre-/post-intervention. MRI-derived current models were passed through a linear Support Vector Machine (SVM) learning algorithm to characterize crucial tDCS current components (intensity and direction) that induced working memory improvements in tDCS responders versus non-responders. MAIN RESULTS: SVM models of tDCS current components had 86% overall accuracy in classifying treatment responders vs. non-responders, with current intensity producing the best overall model differentiating changes in working memory performance. Median current intensity and direction in brain regions near the electrodes were positively related to intervention responses (r=0.811,p<0.001 and r=0.774,p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first evidence that pattern recognition analyses of MRI-derived tDCS current models can provide individual prognostic classification of tDCS treatment response with 86% accuracy. Individual differences in current intensity and direction play important roles in determining treatment response to tDCS. These findings provide important insights into mechanisms of tDCS response as well as proof of concept for future precision dosing models of tDCS intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brs.2020.10.001

Cites

87 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albizu, A., Fang, R., Indahlastari, A., O’Shea, A., Stolte, S. E., See, K. B., Boutzoukas, E. M., Kraft, J. N., Nissim, N. R., & Woods, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida Health (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Woods, Adam J.
Venue
Brain Stimulation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
1753-1764
ISSN
  • 1876-4754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-861X
OpenAlex
W3092211278
Cited by
79
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain stimulation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Research Foundation
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
transcranial direct current stimulation, interindividual variability, electric field modeling, working memory, older adults, support vector machine classification, cognitive training, precision dosing
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain, Cognition, Double-Blind Method, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Individuality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Pilot Projects, Treatment Outcome, Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review