# QEEG-Guided rTMS in Pediatric ASD with Contextual Evidence on Home-Based tDCS: Within-Cohort Reanalysis and Narrative Contextualization

## TL;DR

This study compares the effectiveness of two non-invasive brain stimulation methods for children with autism, finding that rTMS has strong clinical benefits while tDCS is feasible at home.

## Contribution

The paper provides a within-cohort reanalysis of QEEG-guided rTMS outcomes and contextualizes them with home-based tDCS findings in pediatric ASD.

## Key findings

- rTMS showed large improvements in social responsiveness and behavior scores with neurophysiological normalization.
- Home-based tDCS studies report moderate but meaningful improvements in social and regulatory functions with high adherence.
- No direct statistical comparison between rTMS and tDCS was possible due to data limitations and protocol differences.

## Abstract

Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) affects ~1 in 36 children and is increasingly studied as a candidate for non-invasive neuromodulation. Two of the most widely applied modalities are quantitative EEG (QEEG)-guided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), both targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). While both have shown promise, questions remain regarding their relative clinical profiles and scalability. Objective: To conduct a within-cohort reanalysis of QEEG-guided rTMS outcomes in paediatric ASD and to contextualise these findings alongside published reports of home-supervised tDCS. Methods: Individual participant data (n = 56, ages 6–17) from a prospective rTMS cohort were reanalysed, focusing on the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2), Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS-2), Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised (RBS-R), and QEEG biomarkers. Findings were then situated within a narrative synthesis of published paediatric tDCS trials, which consistently report caregiver-supervised feasibility but did not provide raw, baseline-adjusted data suitable for reanalysis. Results: rTMS was associated with large within-cohort improvements (Hedges’ g ≈ 1.0–1.6), including an 11-point reduction in SRS-2 T-scores, a 12-point reduction in ABC totals, and robust QEEG normalisation (β/γ suppression, α enhancement). Published tDCS studies report moderate, clinically meaningful improvements in social communication, executive functioning, and regulation (Cohen’s d ≈ 0.4–0.6), with excellent adherence and no serious adverse events. Conclusions: rTMS produced robust behavioural and neurophysiological improvements within its cohort, while published tDCS trials demonstrate moderate, feasible benefits in home settings. Because of incomplete baseline data and protocol differences, no direct statistical comparison was possible. These findings suggest complementary roles: rTMS as a high-intensity clinic-based intervention, and tDCS as a scalable, family-centred option. A stepped-care framework that combines both modalities should be considered hypothesis-generating only and requires validation in harmonised, randomised controlled trials.