The effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on patients with cognitive dysfunction after cerebral infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To observe the effect of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy combined with repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on patients with cognitive dysfunction after cerebral infarction. Methods A total of 81 patients with cognitive dysfunction after cerebral infarction were randomly divided into a control group, an HBO group and a combined treatment group, each of 27. In addition to basic medication and traditional rehabilitation therapy, the HBO group was also treated with hyperbaric oxygen, while the combined treatment group received both HBO and rTMS. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) were administered before and after the four weeks of treatment. Results The average MMSE scores of the HBO and combined treatment groups were both significantly higher than that of the control group, with the former significantly higher than the latter. Moreover, the average MoCA score of the HBO group was also significantly higher than that of the combined treatment group, and both were significantly higher than that of the control group. Conclusion Hyperbaric oxygen therapy can more effectively improve the cognitive function of patients with cognitive dysfunction after the cerebral infarction when it is combined with repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation. Key words: Hyperbaric oxygen; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Cerebral infarction; Cognitive dysfunction
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".