Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on Parkinson motor function—Systematic review of controlled clinical trials
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) on motor signs in Parkinson's disease (PD). Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus bibliographic, and Google Scholar databases were searched. Relevant controlled clinical trials published between January 1985 and October 2007 were extracted, reviewed, and validated according to the study protocol. The outcome of interest was the motor section of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). We calculated the effect size for the included studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to further assess factors that may change the results. Ten randomized, controlled clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of the results from these trials yielded an effect size of -0.58 in UPDRS for high-frequency rTMS studies and no significant effects for low-frequency rTMS studies. The benefit of high-frequency rTMS on motor signs in PD was confirmed by the meta-analysis. Lower frequency rTMS had little effect on motor signs in PD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it