Gender impact on transcranial magnetic stimulation-based cortical excitability and cognition relationship in healthy individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether cortical excitability, measured via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), is associated with cognition in healthy individuals and whether gender and education have an impact on this relationship. METHODS: Fifty-four healthy individuals (31 males, mean age = 41.94, SD = 21.98; 23 females, mean age 48.57; SD = 22.84) underwent TMS to assess their resting motor threshold (RMT) and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) to assess cognition. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between RMT, education, gender and cognition. RESULTS: The multiple regression model revealed a significant association between RBANS Total Index Score and RMT in the female group (B = 0.624, β = 0.602, P = 0.001) and not the male group (B = 0.048, β = 0.034, P = 0.858). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that lower cortical excitability is associated with better global cognition in healthy female and not male individuals. RMT could be further studied as a tool to better personalize brain stimulation protocols that aim at enhancing cognition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".