MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913376753 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.01036

Combining rTMS With Intensive Language-Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019· article· en· W2913376753 on OpenAlexaff
Paula Heikkinen, Friedemann Pulvermüller, Jyrki P. Mäkelä, Risto J. Ilmoniemi, Pantelis Lioumis, Teija Kujala, Riitta-Leena Manninen, Antti Ahvenainen, Anu Klippi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersTekesHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsAphasiaTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeurorehabilitationRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)PsychologyMedicineBoston Naming TestPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologyPhysical therapyNeuropsychologyRehabilitationStimulationNeuroscienceInternal medicineCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New neuromodulation technologies, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), are promising tools for neurorehabilitation, aphasia therapy included. Combined with behavioral techniques, in particular treatment-efficient Intensive Language-Action Therapy (ILAT, previously CIAT or CILT), TMS could substantially amplify the beneficial effect of such behavioral therapy alone (Thiel et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2014; Mendoza et al., 2016; Kapoor, 2017). In this randomized study of 17 subjects with post-stroke aphasia in the chronic stage, we studied the combined effect of ILAT and 1-Hz placebo-controlled navigated repetitive TMS (rTMS) to the right-hemispheric inferior frontal cortex – that is, to the anterior part of the non-dominant hemisphere’s homologue Broca’s area (pars triangularis). Patients were randomized to groups A and B. Patients in group A received a 2-week period of rTMS during naming training where they named pictures every ten second displayed on the screen, followed by 2-weeks of rTMS and naming combined with ILAT. Those in group B received the same behavioral therapy but TMS was replaced by sham stimulation. The primary outcome measures for changes in language performance were the Western Aphasia Battery’s aphasia quotient AQ; the secondary outcome measures were the Boston naming test (BNT) and the Action naming test (Action BNT, ANT). All subjects completed the study. At baseline, no statistically significant group differences were discovered for age, post-stroke time or diagnosis. ILAT was associated with significant improvement across groups, as documented by both primary (F(1,15)=23.969, p=0.001, η2=0.641) and secondary outcome measures. No significant effect of rTMS could be documented. A ceiling effect for magnetic stimulation was ruled out by numerically lower performance in the TMS group compared with that receiving sham stimulation. Our results agree with previous results proving ILAT’s ability to improve language in patients with chronic aphasia. However, in contrast with earlier claims, a beneficial effect of rTMS in chronic post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation was not detected in this study.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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