↓ Skip to main content

Reproducibility of Single-Pulse, Paired-Pulse, and Intermittent Theta-Burst TMS Measures in Healthy Aging, Type-2 Diabetes, and Alzheimer’s Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
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.
Title
Reproducibility of Single-Pulse, Paired-Pulse, and Intermittent Theta-Burst TMS Measures in Healthy Aging, Type-2 Diabetes, and Alzheimer’s Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00263
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter J. Fried, Ali Jannati, Paula Davila-Pérez, Alvaro Pascual-Leone

Abstract

Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to assess neurophysiology and the mechanisms of cortical brain plasticity in humans in vivo. As the use of these measures in specific populations (e.g., Alzheimer's disease; AD) increases, it is critical to understand their reproducibility (i.e., test-retest reliability) in the populations of interest. Objective: Reproducibility of TMS measures was evaluated in older adults, including healthy, AD, and Type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) groups. Methods: Participants received two identical neurophysiological assessments within a year including motor thresholds, baseline motor evoked potentials (MEPs), short- and long-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI, LICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF), and MEP changes following intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS). Cronbach's α coefficients were calculated to assess reproducibility. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to investigate factors related to intraindividual variability. Results: Reproducibility was highest for motor thresholds, followed by baseline MEPs, SICI and LICI, and was lowest for ICF and iTBS aftereffects. The AD group tended to show higher reproducibility than T2DM or controls. Intraindividual variability of baseline MEPs was related to age and variability of RMT, while the intraindividual variability in post-iTBS measures was related to baseline MEP variability, intervisit duration, and Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) polymorphism. Conclusion: Increased reproducibility in AD may reflect pathophysiological declines in the efficacy of neuroplastic mechanisms. Reproducibility of iTBS aftereffects can be improved by keeping baseline MEPs consistent, controlling for BDNF genotype, and waiting at least a week between visits. Significance: These findings provide the first direct assessment of reproducibility of TMS measures in older clinical populations. Reproducibility coefficients may be used to adjust effect- and sample size calculations for future studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 26%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Master 12 10%
Researcher 9 7%
Professor 7 6%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 34 27%
Psychology 14 11%
Engineering 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 33 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 September 2022.
All research outputs
#16,717,986
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3,940
of 5,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,713
of 323,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#73
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 323,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.