A Pilot Clinical Trial of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as a progressive memory dysfunction. There are controversies with regards to whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could improve the condition. Methods: In a randomized, self-control, crossover clinical trial, effect of rTMS on cognitive performance in patients with MCI was assessed. Patients were randomized into two study groups (A and B) and received both rTMS procedure and sham therapy in sequence, with each lasting for 8 weeks. Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) test was performed as a cognition battery at baseline and 1 week after each 8-week period of interventions. Results: Sixteen patients were enrolled in the study. Baseline measures of MoCA were statistically equal between two groups (P value = 0.10). Mean MoCA score significantly increased in group A at nine-week follow-up compared to both group B (P value < 0.001) and its baseline (P value = 0.01). However, at 18-week follow-up, mean MoCA scores were increased in both groups compared to their baseline (both P values < 0.001) with no significant differences between study groups (P value = 0.87). No adverse effects were reported. Conclusions: The rTMS is suggested as an effective and safe therapeutic option for cognitive improvement in patients with MCI. J Neurol Res. 2020;10(5):188-192 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr622
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".