The effect of single and repeated tDCS sessions on motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to update understanding of the effectiveness of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor dysfunction in Parkinson's disease, since the last review was published in 2016. METHODS: in order to identify suitable publications for inclusion, an online search of the Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane databases was carried out. Searches of relevant full-text articles were performed through specific keywords. The final database check was performed in July 2019. Papers were restricted to studies investigating motor rehabilitative effects of tDCS in adult patients with Parkinson's disease. Studies involving either single or repeated tDCS sessions with a sham or controlled trial type design (which incorporated outcomes on motor performance measures) were considered. As studies varied widely in terms of methodology, a qualitative analysis of the selected studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale or the Delphi list (depending on the study design). RESULTS: twenty-nine studies were retained in this systematic review. Of the studies included, fifteen involved single tDCS session (patients = 256) and fourteen involved repeated tDCS sessions (patients = 294). Eight investigations of single tDCS and ten investigations of repeated tDCS demonstrated significant results. Studies involving multi- target stimulation demonstrated significant improvements on mobility (p=0.006), balance (by 50.9%), gait velocity (by 29%), fall reduction (p0.05) compared to mono-target stimulations. CONCLUSIONS: despite increasing evidence that tDCS may improve motor symptoms, the results showed that fully optimized tDCS protocols are not yet established.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".