Background: Brain plasticity is an intrinsic property of the nervous system, which is modified during its lifetime. This is one mechanism of recuperation after injuries with an important role in rehabilitation. Evidence suggests that injuries in the nervous system disturb the stability between inhibition and excitability essential for the recuperation process of neuroplasticity. However, the mechanisms involved in this balance are not completely understood and, besides the advancement in the field, the knowledge has had a low impact on the rehabilitation practice. Therefore, the understanding of the relationship between biomarkers and functional disability may help to optimize and individualize treatments and build consistent studies in the future.Methods: This cohort study, the deficit of inhibition as a marker of neuroplasticity study, will follow four groups (stroke, spinal cord injury, limb amputation, and osteoarthritis) to understand the neuroplasticity mechanisms involved in motor rehabilitation. We will recruit 500 subjects (including 100 age- and sex-matched controls). A battery of neurophysiological assessments, transcranial magnetic stimulation, electroencephalography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging, is going to be used to assess plasticity on the motor cortex before and after rehabilitation. One of the main hypotheses in this cohort is that the level of intracortical inhibition is related to functional deficits. We expect to develop a better understanding of the neuroplasticity mechanisms involved in the rehabilitation, and we expect to build neurophysiological “transdiagnostic” biomarkers, especially the markers of inhibition, which will have great relevance in the scientific and therapeutic improvement in rehabilitation. The relationship between neurophysiological and clinical outcomes will be analyzed using linear and logistic regression models.Discussion: By evaluating the reliability of electroencephalography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and magnetic resonance imaging measures as possible biomarkers for neurologic rehabilitation in different neurologic disorders, this study will aid in the understanding of brain plasticity mechanisms in rehabilitation, allowing more effective approaches and screening methods to take place.

Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) has been investigated as a novel neuromodulation tool. Although taVNS is generally considered safe with only mild and transient adverse effects (AEs), those specifically caused by taVNS have not yet been investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis on taVNS aimed to (1) systematically analyze study characteristics and AE assessment, (2) characterize and analyze possible AEs and their incidence, (3) search for predictable risk factors, (4) analyze the severity of AE, and (5) suggest an evidence-based taVNS adverse events questionnaire for safety monitoring. The articles searched were published through April 7, 2022, in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases. In general, we evaluated 177 studies that assessed 6322 subjects. From these, 55.37% of studies did not mention the presence or absence of any AEs; only 24.86% of the studies described that at least one adverse event occurred. In the 35 studies reporting the number of subjects with at least one adverse event, a meta-analytic approach to calculate the risk differences of developing an adverse event between active taVNS and controls was used. The meta-analytic overall adverse events incidence rate was calculated for the total number of adverse events reported on a 100,000 person-minutes-days scale. There were no differences in risk of developing an adverse event between active taVNS and controls. The incidence of AE, in general, was 12.84/100,000 person-minutes-days of stimulation, and the most frequently reported were ear pain, headache, and tingling. Almost half of the studies did not report the presence or absence of any AEs. We attribute this to the absence of AE in those studies. There was no causal relationship between taVNS and severe adverse events. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of transcutaneous auricular stimulation safety. Overall, taVNS is a safe and feasible option for clinical intervention.