High-frequency versus theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of poststroke cognitive impairment in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Because the reliability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating poststroke cognitive impairment has not been convincingly demonstrated, we systematically examined the effectiveness of this regimen with 2 protocols. Methods: We randomly allocated 41 patients with poststroke cognitive impairment to receive 5 Hz rTMS (n = 11), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS; n = 15) or sham stimulation (n = 15). Each group received 10 stimulation sessions over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. We performed the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and the Beck Depression Inventory at baseline and after the intervention. Results: The 5 Hz rTMS group showed significantly greater improvement than the sham group in RBANS total score (p = 0.006), attention (p = 0.001) and delayed memory (p < 0.001). The iTBS group showed significantly greater improvement than the sham group in RBANS total score (p = 0.005) and delayed memory (p = 0.007). The 5 Hz rTMS group exhibited a superior modulating effect in attention compared to the iTBS group (p = 0.016). Patients without comorbid hypertension (p = 0.008) were predisposed to favourable therapeutic outcomes. Limitations: Although we included only patients with left hemispheric stroke, heterogeneity associated with cortical and subcortical implications existed. We did not investigate the remote effects of rTMS. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that both 5 Hz rTMS and iTBS were effective for poststroke cognitive impairment in terms of global cognition, attention and memory function; the domain of attention was susceptible to 5 Hz modulation. Treatment with 5 Hz rTMS may slow cognitive decline, representing both a pivotal process in poststroke cognitive impairment and an aspect of neuroplasticity that contributes to disease-modifying strategies. Clinical trial registration: NCT02006615; clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02006615.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".