MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117739325 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.584374

Theta-Burst Stimulation for Cognitive Enhancement in Parkinson's Disease With Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3117739325 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Lang, Liu Shi Gan, Eun Jin Yoon, Alexandru Hanganu, Mekale Kibreab, Jenelle Cheetham, Tracy Hammer, Iris Kathol, Justyna R. Sarna, Davide Martino, Oury Monchi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStimulationCognitionNeuropsychologyPsychologyPrefrontal cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingBrain stimulationNeuroscienceAudiologyRandomized controlled trialEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Mild cognitive impairment is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI) and has minimal treatment options. Objective: In this double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial, we assessed the effect of repeated sessions of intermittent theta-burst stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on cognition and brain connectivity in subjects with PD-MCI. Methods: Forty-one subjects were randomized to receive real ( n = 21) or sham stimulation ( n = 20). All subjects underwent neuropsychological assessments before, 1 day, and 1 month after stimulation. Subjects also underwent resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging before and 48 h after stimulation. The primary outcome was the change in the cognitive domain (executive function, attention, memory, language, and visuospatial abilities) z-scores across time. Results: There was an insignificant effect on cognitive domain z-scores across time when comparing real with sham stimulation and correcting for multiple comparisons across cognitive domains ( p > 0.05 Bonferroni correction). However, the real stimulation group demonstrated a trend toward improved executive functioning scores at the 1-month follow-up compared with sham ( p < 0.05 uncorrected). After real stimulation, the connectivity of the stimulation site showed decreased connectivity to the left caudate head. There was no change in connectivity within or between the stimulation network (a network of cortical regions connected to the stimulation site) and the striatal network. However, higher baseline connectivity between the stimulation network and the striatal network was associated with improved executive function scores at 1 month. Conclusions: These results suggest that intermittent theta-burst stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in subjects with PD-MCI has minimal effect on cognition compared with sham, although there were trends toward improved executive function. This intervention may be more effective in subjects with higher baseline connectivity between the stimulation network and the striatal network. This trial supports further investigation focusing on executive function and incorporating connectivity-based targeting. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT03243214.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207