Non-invasive brain stimulation as add-on therapy for subacute post-stroke aphasia: a randomized trial (NORTHSTAR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) with speech therapy might improve recovery from post-stroke aphasia. This three-armed sham-controlled blinded prospective proof-of-concept study tested 1 Hz subthreshold repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and 2-mA cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) on the right pars triangularis in subacute post-stroke aphasia. Patients and methods Sixty-three patients with left middle cerebral artery infarcts were recruited in five hospitals (Canada/United States/Germany, 01–2014/03–2018) and randomized to receive rTMS (N = 20), ctDCS (N = 24) or sham stimulation (N = 19) with ST for 10 days. Primary outcome variables were Z-score changes in naming, semantic fluency and comprehension tests and adverse event frequency. Secondary outcome variable was the percent change in the Unified Aphasia Score. Intention-to-treat analyses tested between-group effects at days 1 and 30 post-treatment with a pre-planned subgroup analysis for lesion location (affecting Broca’s area or not). Results Naming was significantly improved by rTMS (median = 1.91/interquartile range = 0.77/p = .01) at 30 days versus ctDCS (median = 1.11/interquartile range = 1.51) and sham stimulation (median = 1.02/interquartile range = 1.71). All other primary results were non-significant. The rTMS effect was driven by the patient subgroup with intact Broca’s area where NIBS tended to improve UnAS (median = 33.2%/interquartile range = 46.7%/p = .062) versus sham stimulation (median = 12.5%/interquartile range = 7.9%) at day 30. Conversely, in patients with infarcted Broca’s area, UnAS tended to improve more with sham stimulation (median = 75.0%/interquartile range = 86.9%/p = .053) versus NIBS (median = 12.7%/interquartile range = 31.7). Conclusion: We found a delayed positive effect of low-frequency rTMS targeting the right pars triangularis on the recovery of naming performance in subacute post-stroke aphasia. This intervention may be beneficial only in patients with morphologically intact Broca’s area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".