The Effects of Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation on Cognition in Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate whether transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) can improve cognition in stroke patients. METHODS: Forty-five stroke patients (20 males and 25 females, average age: 62.7 years) with cognitive dysfunction were included in this prospective, double-blinded, randomized case-control study. All patients were right-handed and the mean elapsed time after stroke was 39.3 days. Three different treatments groups were used: (1) anodal stimulation of the left anterior temporal lobe, (2) anodal stimulation of the right anterior temporal lobe, and (3) sham stimulation. tDCS was delivered for 30 minutes at 2 mA with 25 cm(2) electrodes, five times/week, for a total of 3 weeks, using a Phoresor II Auto Model PM 850 (IOMED(®)). The evaluation of cognitive impairment was based on a Computerized Neuropsychological Test (CNT), Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE). The Korean version of the Modified Barthel Index (K-MBI) was used to assess activities of daily living functionality. These evaluations were conducted in all patients before and after treatment. RESULTS: Each group included 15 patients. Pre-treatment evaluation showed no significant differences between the three groups for any of the parameters. There was significant improvement in the verbal learning test on the CNT in the left anodal stimulation group (P < 0.05). There were, however, no significant differences in the K-MMSE or K-MBI scores among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated the beneficial effects of anodal tDCS on memory function. Thus, tDCS can successfully be used as a treatment modality for patients with cognitive dysfunction after stroke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".