The therapeutic effects of supplementing rehabilitation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treating vascular cognitive impairment but no dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) together with rehabilitation on the cognitive functioning of patients with vascular cognitive impairment but no dementia (VCIND). Methods Sixty patients with VCIND were randomly divided into an rTMS group and a control group using a random number table, each of 30. Both groups were given routine drug treatment including controlling their blood pressure and blood sugar, regulating the metabolism of lipids, nerve nurturing and circulation improvement. They also received conventional rehabilitation training consisting of physical therapy, occupational therapy and cognitive training. The rTMS group was additionally given rTMS using the CCY-type I transcranial magnetic stimulator over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) at 10 Hz, 3000 pulses per day at their individual motor thresholds on weekdays for 4 weeks. The cognitive functioning and ability in daily life (ADL) of both groups was assessed using the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and the modified Barthel Index (MBI) before and after the treatment. The P300 latency and amplitude of both groups were also measured. Results Before the treatment, no significant differences were found in any of the measurements (P>0.05). After the treatment, the average P300 latency and amplitude of both groups were better than before treatment (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the P300 latency of the rTMS group was significantly shorter[(344.48±20.10) ms](P<0.05) but the amplitude was significantly greater[(8.49±1.49)μV](P<0.05). After treatment the average MoCA, MMSE and MBI scores had increased significantly in both groups, but with significantly better increase in the rTMS group than in the control group, However, no significant improvement was observed in the MoCA abstract generalization or orientation results of either group, Conclusion Supplementing conventional rehabilitation with rTMS is more effective in improving cognition and ADL performance. It is worth applying in clinical practice. Key words: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; Rehabilitation training; Vascular cognitive impairment but no dementia
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".