Effectiveness of theta and gamma electroacupuncture for post-stroke patients on working memory and electrophysiology: study protocol for a double-center, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, sham-controlled, parallel, clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine have suggested that electroacupuncture (EA) could improve post-stroke cognitive impairment, based on the clinical evidence. This study protocol is aimed at showing the effectiveness of theta and gamma EA for post-stroke patients on working memory (WM) and electrophysiology. METHODS: After assessing their eligibility, 66 patients with stroke will be enrolled from two Chinese medicine hospitals and randomly divided into theta frequency EA group, gamma frequency EA group, and sham-EA group according to the ratio of 1:1:1. All patients will receive 20 sessions of EA procedures for 4 weeks. Patients in three groups will receive EA at two same acupoints in the head: Baihui (GV20) and Shenting (GV24). The frequency of the three groups of EA is set as follows: 6 Hz (theta-EA group), 40 Hz (gamma-EA group), and no current through the electrodes (sham EA). Patients and assessors will be blinded throughout the entire study. The primary outcome is the performance accuracy of 1-back task which is a frequently used measure of WM in cognitive neuroscience research contexts. Secondary outcome measures will include the response time of 1-back task, the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test, Trail Making Test, Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment Scale, modified Barthel Index, and electroencephalogram (EEG) signals during 1-back tasks. A blinding index will be assessed. Data will be statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, at 5% of significance level. DISCUSSION: We expect this double-center, randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, sham-controlled, parallel, clinical trial to explore the effectiveness of theta and gamma EA therapy, compared with sham EA, for post-stroke WM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000031995 . Registered on 17 April 2020.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".