Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in chronic tension-type headache
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & objectives: Tension-type headache (TTH) is the most common type of primary headache disorder. Its chronic form is often the most ignored and challenging to treat. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a novel technique in the treatment of chronic pain. The aim of this pilot study was to explore the effect of low-frequency repetitive TMS (rTMS) on pain status in chronic TTH (CTTH) by subjective and objective pain assessment. Methods: Patients (n=30) diagnosed with CTTH were randomized into rTMS (n=15) and placebo (n=15) groups in this study. Pre-intervention detailed history of patients was taken. Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain and questionnaires [Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), McGill Pain Questionnaire, Pain Beliefs Questionnaire, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Test, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and WHO-Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brief version] were filled, and objective assessments such as nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) and conditioned pain modulation were done. The tests were repeated after 20 sessions (5 days/week). In the rTMS group, 1200 pulses in eight trains of 150 pulses each were given at 1Hz over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (RDLPFC). In the placebo group, the rTMS coil was placed such that magnetic stimulation did not reach the cortex. Results: The NRS score decreased significantly (P<0.001) and NFR thresholds increased significantly (P=0.011) in the rTMS group when compared to placebo group. Interpretation & conclusions: Subjective improvements in the NRS, HIT-6, McGill Present Pain Intensity, trait of anxiety and psychological pain beliefs were observed. The increase in the thresholds of NFR served as an objective marker for improvement in pain status. Further studies need to be done to confirm our preliminary findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".