Cerebral Functional Manipulation of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Cognitive Impairment Patients After Stroke: An fMRI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Recently, the area of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting neurological rehabilitation has been advanced as a potential treatment for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). However, the underlying mechanisms remains to be elusived. This study aims to figure out cerebral functional manipulation of rTMS in patients with PSCI through using the resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI). Methods: Thirty patients with PSCI were recruited and randomly allocated into two groups: the rTMS intervention group and control group. The rTMS intervention group was given 20 mins of 5 Hz rTMS (or control) over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) besides routine cognitive intervention training for 3 consecutive weeks, five times per week, on weekdays. Cognition performance was assessed by the Minimum Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). Neural activity and functional connectivity (FC) changes were acquired by rs-fMRI with fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF) and seed-based correlation analysis. Results: Cognition improvements were observed both in rTMS intervention group and control group (P<0.01), while the rTMS group got more significant improvent than control group(P<0.05). To be specified, Compared with the control group, the rTMS group got higher fALFF values in these brain regions including superior temporal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus and parahippocampal gyrus, while lower fALFF values in middle temporal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus and fusiform gyrus. In addition, the rTMS group showed increased FC between LDPFC and toprecuneus, inferior temporal gyrus, middle and inferior frontal gyrus and marginal gyrus, while decreased FC between LDPFC and middle temporal gyrus and thalamus. Conclusion: The increase and decrease of neural activity and FC in cognition-related regions detected by rs-fMRI are good indicators to clarify the underlining mechanisms of rTMS on PSCI.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".