Non-invasive neuromodulation for tinnitus: A meta-analysis and modeling studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with tinnitus often have poor quality of life, as well as severe anxiety and depression. New approaches to treat tinnitus are needed. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effects of non-invasive neuromodulation on tinnitus through a metaanalysis and modeling study. The main hypothesis was that real as compared to sham neuromodulation that decreases tinnitus will modulate regions in line with the neurobiological models of tinnitus. METHODS AND RESULTS: The systematic review, conducted from Pubmed, Cochrane and PsycINFO databases, showed that active as compared to sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) reduced tinnitus, but active and sham transcranial direct current stimulation did not significantly differ. Further, rTMS over the auditory cortex was the most effective protocol. The modeling results indicate that this rTMS protocol elicited the strongest electric fields in the insula. Also, rTMS was particularly beneficial in women. Finally, the placebo effects were highly variable, highlighting the importance of conducting sham-controlled trials. CONCLUSION: In sum, neuromodulation protocols that target the auditory cortex and the insula may hold clinical potential to treat tinnitus.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it