MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955014289 · doi:10.14740/jnr.v9i3.512

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Treatment of Levodopa-Induced Dyskinesia in Parkinson’s Disease

2019· article· en· W2955014289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aktham Ismail Alemam, Mohamed Abdelhalim Eltantawy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyskinesiaMedicineTranscranial magnetic stimulationLevodopaParkinson's diseaseDeep brain stimulationDopaminergicAnesthesiaDystoniaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyStimulationDiseaseInternal medicineDopaminePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Dyskinesia is one of the major complications of long-term dopaminergic treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD), and deep brain stimulation may be the only satisfactory treatment for it. This study aims to search if there is any therapeutic effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for levodopa-induced dyskinesia (LID) in PD patients. Methods: This study was conducted in Mansoura International Specialized Hospital in 43 complicated idiopathic PD patients. The patients with LID were divided into two groups matched in age, sex, duration and stage of the disease. Dyskinesia was detected by the Unified PD Rating Scale section IV. The patients of the study group (20 patients) received active rTMS, 5 Hz was applied bilaterally over the motor hand and leg areas of the cortex, in 20 trains, and each train is formed of 100 pulses, with 20-s inter-train interval. Ten sessions were administered once per day for 10 successive days for each patient. The patients of the control group (20 patients) received sham rTMS. Results: After rTMS, there was significant improvement in LID in the study group (P < 0.001), while there was no improvement in the control one (P = 0.585). As regards to the LID clinical presentations, there was no significant difference between the two groups according to dyskinesia duration (P = 0.246), disability (P = 0.425) and early morning dystonia (P = 0.059), while there was significant improvement of painful dyskinesia in the study group (P = 0.046). Conclusions: The rTMS may have an additional therapeutic benefit for LID. Further studies may put the best rTMS parameters to establish more prominent and longer-lasting clinical effects. J Neurol Res. 2019;9(3):28-34 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr512

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology ResearchSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207