MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044056469 · doi:10.1159/000355499

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Treatment of Right- and Left-Handed Poststroke Aphasics

2013· article· en· W2044056469 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMarga und Walter Boll-StiftungBundesamt für StrahlenschutzWellcome Trust
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationMedicineAphasiaStimulationBrain stimulationAudiologyLateralization of brain functionRandomized controlled trialNeurosciencePsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence from single case studies, small case series and randomized controlled trials seems to suggest that inhibitory noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) over the contralesional inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) of right-handers in conjunction with speech and language therapy (SLT) improves recovery from poststroke aphasia. Application of inhibitory NIBS to improve recovery in left-handed patients has not yet been reported. METHODS: A total of 29 right-handed subacute poststroke aphasics were randomized to receive either 10 sessions of SLT following 20 min of inhibitory repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the contralesional IFG or 10 sessions of SLT following sham stimulation; 2 left-handers were treated according to the same protocol with real rTMS. Language activation patterns were assessed with positron emission tomography prior to and after the treatment; 95% confidence intervals for changes in language performance scores and the activated brain volumes in both hemispheres were derived from TMS- and sham-treated right-handed patients and compared to the same parameters in left-handers. RESULTS: Right-handed patients treated with rTMS showed better recovery of language function in global aphasia test scores (t test, p < 0.002) as well as in picture-naming performance (ANOVA, p = 0.03) than sham-treated right-handers. In treated right-handers, a shift of activation to the ipsilesional hemisphere was observed, while sham-treated patients consolidated network activity in the contralesional hemisphere (repeated-measures ANOVA, p = 0.009). Both left-handed patients also improved, with 1 patient within the confidence limits of TMS-treated right-handers (23 points, 15.9-28.9) and the other patient within the limits of sham-treated subjects (8 points, 2.8-14.5). Both patients exhibited only a very small interhemispheric shift, much less than expected in TMS-treated right-handers, and more or less consolidated initially active networks in both hemispheres. CONCLUSION: Inhibitory rTMS over the nondominant IFG appears to be a safe and effective treatment for right-handed poststroke aphasics. In the 2 cases of left-handed aphasics no deterioration of language performance was observed with this protocol. However, therapeutic efficiency is less obvious and seems to be more related to the dominance pattern prior to the stroke than to the TMS intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it