Cognitive Fatigability Interventions in Neurological Conditions: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although fatigue is a well-studied concept in neurological disease, cognitive fatigability (CF) is less understood. While most studies measure fatigue using subjective self-report, fewer have measured CF objectively. Given the negative impact of CF on quality-of-life, there is a need for targeted interventions. The objective of this review was to determine which procedural, behavioural and pharmacological treatments for objectively measured CF are available to people living with neurological conditions. METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches for randomized control trials (RCTs), case-controlled studies and case reports/series were conducted across the Ovid Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. English-language articles published between 1980 and February 2019 were considered for eligibility. Included were those that objectively measured CF in individuals with neurological disease/disorder/dysfunction between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Studies were reviewed using a modified Cochrane Data Extraction Template. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The review process was facilitated using Covidence software (www.covidence.org). Two authors reviewed articles independently, with a third resolving conflicts regarding article inclusion. RESULTS: The search identified 450 records. After duplicates were removed and remaining titles/abstracts were screened for eligibility, 28 full-text articles were assessed, and two studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies were a priori divided into those with pharmacological, procedural or behavioural interventions. Two studies met eligibility criteria; both of these included participants with multiple sclerosis. One study utilized a procedural intervention (i.e. transcranial direct current stimulation), while the other utilized a pharmacological intervention (i.e. fampridine-SR). Studies were evaluated for risk of bias, and evidence from both eligible studies was discussed. CONCLUSION: Despite the positive results of the procedural intervention, the paucity of eligible studies and the nascent nature of the field suggests that more studies are required before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the amenability of CF to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019118706).
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".