Effects of Excitatory Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Anterior Intraparietal Area in Chronic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1) Objective: to evaluate the effects of excitatory transcranial magnetic stimulation of the anterior intraparietal area in chronic patients with a frontal lesion and parietal sparing due to stroke on the impaired upper (UL) and lower limb (LL) as measured by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). 2) Methods: three patients (P1: 49.83/2.75, P2: 53.17/3.83, P3:63.33/3.08 years-old at stroke/years post-stroke, respectively) received two weeks (five days/ week) of rTMS at 10 Hz of the left anterior intraparietal area (AIP). A patient was treated in similar conditions with a sham coil (56.58/4.33) No complimentary therapy was delivered during the study. Patients were evaluated before, after- and two-months post-treatment (A1, A2 and A3, respectively). 3) Results: We found increased scores for lower limb in motor function subsection for P1 and P3 and in sensory function for P2 by A2 that remained at A3. We also found an increased score for upper limb motor function for P2 and P3, but the score decreased by A3 for P2. P3 score for upper limb ROM increased by A3 compared to A1 and A2. 4) Conclusion: AIP excitatory rTMS increased the FMA scores for lower and upper limb function, showing a broader effect when compared to M1 stimulation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".