Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy to Study the Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Concussion: A Two-Patient Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Approximately 25% of concussion patients experience persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been explored as a treatment, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) may be a cost-effective method for assessing response. Objectives: Evaluate rTMS for the treatment of PPCS and introduce fNIRS as a method of assessing treatment response. Methods: Design: Two-patient case study. Setting: Calgary Brain Injury Program. Participants: 47 and 49 yrs. male, with PPCS for 1-2 years (headache, cognitive difficulties, nausea, visual difficulties, irritability, anxiety, poor mood, sleep, and fatigue). Intervention: Ten sessions of rTMS therapy to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), at 10Hz (600 pulses) and 70% of resting motor threshold amplitude. Participants completed an eight-week headache diary and a battery of clinical questionnaires prior to each fNIRS session. fNIRS: Hemodynamic changes were recorded over the frontoparietal cortex during rest, finger tapping, and a graded working memory test. fNIRS was completed pre-rTMS, following rTMS (day 14), and at 1-month post-rTMS (day 45). For comparison, two healthy, sex-matched controls were scanned with fNIRS once daily for five consecutive days. Results: Clinical scores improved (headache severity, MoCA, HIT-6, PHQ-9, GAD-7, QOLIBRI, RPSQ, BCPSI) or remained stable (PCL-5, headache frequency) post-rTMS, for both participants. Participant 1 reported moderate symptom burden, and a fNIRS task-evoked hemodynamic response showing increased oxyhemoglobin was observed following a working memory task, as expected. Participant 2 exhibited a high symptom burden pre-treatment, with abnormal fNIRS hemodynamic response where oxyhemoglobin declined, in response to task. One month following rTMS treatment, participant 2 had a normal fNIRS hemodynamic response to task, corresponding to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. Conclusion: This case study suggests fNIRS may be sensitive to physiological changes that accompany rTMS treatment. Further studies exploring fNIRS as a cost-effective technology for monitoring rTMS response in patients with PPCS are suggested.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".