MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902970036 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2018.00379

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Measures in the Elderly: Reliability, Smallest Detectable Change and the Potential Influence of Lifestyle Habits

2018· article· en· W2902970036 on OpenAlexafffund
Francis Houde, Sarah Laroche, Véronique Thivierge, Marylie Martel, Marie-Philippe Harvey, Frédérique Daigle, Ailin Olivares-Marchant, Louis‐David Beaulieu, Guillaume Léonard

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversité de SherbrookeCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationIntraclass correlationPsychologyAgeingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPopulationPhysical therapyAudiologyMedicineMotor cortexStimulationInternal medicineClinical psychologyNeurosciencePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a noninvasive technique that can be used to evaluate cortical function and corticospinal pathway in normal and pathological aging. Yet, the psychometric evaluation of TMS-related measurements is still limited in the aging population. Objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to document the reliability and smallest detectable change of TMS measurements among community-dwelling seniors. A secondary objective was to test if TMS measurements differ between elders based on lifestyle, medical and socio-demographic factors. Methods: Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by single-pulse TMS were recorded in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) in 26 elderly individuals (mean age = 70 ± 3.8 years). Resting motor threshold (rMT), MEP amplitudes and cortical silent period (cSP) were measured on 2 separate occasions (1-week interval), and the standard error of the measurement (SEMeas), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and smallest detectable change in an individual (SDCindv) were calculated. Lifestyle, medical and socio-demographic factors were collected using questionnaires. TMS-related outcomes were compared using independent sample t-test based on the presence of chronic health diseases, chronic medication intake, obesity, history of smoking, physical activity levels, gender, and level of education. Results: rMT and cSP measures were the most reliable outcomes, with the lowest SEMeas and highest ICCs, whereas MEP amplitude-related measures were less reliable. SDCindv levels were generally high, even for rMT (7.29 %MSO) and cSP (43.16-50.84 ms) measures. Although not systematically significant, results pointed toward a higher corticospinal excitability in elderly individuals who were regularly active, who had no chronic medical conditions and who did not take any medication. Conclusion: Even though SDCindv levels were relatively high, these results show that rMT and cSP are the most reliable outcomes to investigate age-related changes in the corticomotor system and suggest that the influence of factors such as life habits and medications on TMS measures should be investigated further.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207