Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on Parkinson motor function—Systematic review of controlled clinical trials
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".