A Pilot Study Comparing Effects of Bifrontal Versus Bitemporal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Mild Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can enhance aspects of memory in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD), there has been wide variability in both the placement of tDCS electrodes and treatment response. This study compared the effects of bifrontal (anodal stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortices), bitemporal (anodal stimulation over the temporal cortices), and sham tDCS on cognitive performance in MCI and AD. METHODS: Seventeen patients diagnosed with MCI or mild AD received 3 sessions of anodal tDCS (bifrontal, bitemporal, 2 mA for 20 minutes; and sham) in random order. Sessions were separated by 1 week. The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Word Recognition Task, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Word Recall Task, 2-back, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were used to assess cognition. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of stimulation condition on 2-back accuracy (F2,28 = 5.28 P = 0.01, ηp = 0.27), with greater improvements following bitemporal tDCS compared with both bifrontal and sham stimulations. There were no significant changes on other outcome measures following any stimulation. Adverse effects from stimulation were mild and temporary. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that improvements in specific memory tasks can be safely achieved after a single session of bitemporal tDCS in MCI and mild AD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".