Brain stimulation in attention deficits after traumatic brain injury: a literature review and feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After a traumatic brain injury, disturbances in the attentional processes have a direct negative effect on functional recovery and on return to complex activities. To date, there is no good attention remediation treatment available. The primary objective of this review and pilot study is to provide an overview of the research evidence and to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a tDCS protocol to improve attention disorders in patients with mild complicated to severe subacute TBI, hospitalized in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Our secondary objective is to extract preliminary data and observational information on participants' response to treatment. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a consecutive series of patients admitted to the TBI unit of a subspecialized regional rehabilitation center. They received a 20-min tDCS stimulation 3 times a week for 3 weeks. A neuropsychological evaluation was performed before and after the intervention. We collected participants' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics as well as information about satisfaction, tolerability, and adverse effects. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four patients were admitted between September 2018 and January 2020. One hundred fifty-eight were excluded, and 6 patients with presumed attentional deficits were enrolled. None completed the protocol as intended. No major side effects occurred. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive brain neurostimulation is promising to enhance attention deficits in patients with TBI. Implementation of a tDCS protocol to fulfill this purpose in an intensive inpatient rehabilitation center has its limitations. We made recommendations to facilitate the implementation of similar projects in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN55243064 . Registered 14 October 2020-retrospectively registered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".