Abstract WP189: Safety and Preliminary Efficacy of Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Enhance Upper Limb Motor Function Early After Ischemic Stroke: a Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has the potential to improve upper limb motor outcomes after stroke. Objective: To evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of active cathodal compared to sham tDCS of the primary motor cortex of the unaffected hemisphere (ctDCSM1 UH ), within 72 hours to 6 weeks post-ischemic stroke. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, 30 patients with unilateral hand paresis were assigned to either active or sham ctDCSM1 UH as add-on interventions to rehabilitation. The primary outcome was the frequency of adverse events. Secondary outcomes, compared before, immediately after treatment and three months later, included measures of upper limb motor performance and quality of life. Stroke volume was assessed before and after treatment. Results: Overall, tDCS was well tolerated and there were no serious adverse events. One subject in the active group reported paresthesias in the paretic arm during the first session of ctDCSM1 UH . Heart rate increased significantly after active and decreased significantly after sham ctDCSM1 UH but these changes were not clinically significant. Upper limb motor impairment and quality of life improved significantly more in the sham than in the active group at three months post-treatment according to intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The between-group difference in motor impairment was not clinically relevant. There were no recurrent strokes and lesion volumes did not increase significantly in either group. Conclusions: Active ctDCSM1 UH was safe and well tolerated but the preliminary efficacy results do not support a beneficial role of this intervention within the first six weeks after stroke.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".