Enhancement Of Motor Recovery Through Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Stimulation After Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Two previous studies, which investigated transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) use in motor recovery after acute ischemic stroke, did not show tDCS to be effective in this regard. We speculated that additional left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) stimulation may enhance post stroke motor recovery. Methods: In the present randomized clinical trial, 20 acute ischemic stroke patients were recruited. Patients received real motor cortex (M1) stimulation in both arms of the trial. The two arms differed in terms of real vs. sham stimulation over the left DLPFC. Motor component of the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity assessment (FM) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores were used to assess primary outcomes, and non-linear mixed effects models were used for data analyses.Results: Primary outcome measures improved more and faster among the real stimulation group. During the first days of stimulations, sham group’s FM scores increased 1.2 scores per day, while real group’s scores increased 1.7 scores per day (P = 0.003). In the following days, FM improvement decelerated in both groups. Based on the derived models, a hypothetical stroke patient with baseline FM score of 15 improves to 32 in the sham stimulation group and to 41 in the real stimulation group within the first month after stroke. Models with ARAT scores yielded nearly similar results.Conclusion: The current study results showed that left DLPFC stimulation in conjunction with M1 stimulation resulted in better motor recovery than M1 stimulation alone.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".