Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation improves cognitive function of Alzheimer's disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
// Junwu Zhao 1,2 , Zhenguang Li 2 , Yannan Cong 2 , Jinbiao Zhang 2 , Ming Tan 2 , Haixia Zhang 2 , Na Geng 2 , Mengfan Li 2 , Wenwen Yu 3 and Peiyan Shan 1 1 Department of Neurology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China 2 Department of Neurology, Weihai Municipal Hospital, Weihai, Shandong, China 3 Department of Clinical Medicine (Neurology), Weifang Medical University, Weifang, Shandong, China Correspondence to: Peiyan Shan, email: // Keywords : rTMS, cognitive function, AD Received : September 12, 2016 Accepted : October 24, 2016 Published : November 03, 2016 Abstract Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) acts as a kind of widely-applied and non-invasive method in the intervention of some neurological disorders. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigates the effect of rTMS on 30 cases of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) participants, who were classified into mild and moderate groups. Neuropsychological tests were carried out using the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and World Health Organization University of California-Los Angeles, Auditory Verbal Learning Test (WHO-UCLA AVLT) before, immediately after, and 6 weeks after the intervention. In this work, data from 30 AD patients revealed that there was no obvious interaction effect of time-by-group. The ADAS-cog, MMSE and WHO-UCLA AVLT score in the rTMS group was significantly improved compared with baselines at 6 weeks after treatment (all p <0.05). Meanwhile, MoCA scores were also obviously ameliorated in the mild AD patients with rTMS. Besides, subgroup analysis showed that the effect of rTMS on the memory and language of mild AD patients was superior to those of moderate AD patients. In conclusion, our findings suggested that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation improves cognitive function, memory and language level of AD patients, especially in the mild stage of AD. Thus, rTMS can be recommended as a promising adjuvant therapy combined with cholinesterase inhibitors at the mild stage of AD patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".