Changing cortical excitability with low-frequency magnetic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is now the preferred method for noninvasive brain stimulation in human subjects. Single and paired-pulse TMS can test different excitatory and inhibitory cortical circuits and have been used to study the pathophysiology of many neurologic and psychiatric disorders.1 A different way of applying TMS is repetitive TMS (rTMS), which refers to regularly repeated stimuli to a single scalp site. rTMS can modulate cortical excitability, and the effect depends on the frequency of stimulation. High-frequency (>5 Hz) stimulation increases cortical excitability and is a promising treatment for depression. Recently, Boroojerdi et al.2 showed that high-frequency rTMS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can improve cognitive processing in normal subjects. This raises the possibility of using such intervention in the rehabilitation of brain injuries.3 In contrast, low-frequency rTMS at a stimulation rate of approximately one per second decreases cortical excitability beyond the period of stimulation.4 Although this effect was initially observed in the …
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".