Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Post-stroke Non-fluent Aphasia in Relation with Broca's Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the differences in the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) between patients with and without the involvement of Broca's area (IBA). The medical records of 20 stroke patients treated with rTMS for non-fluent aphasia were reviewed. Patients completed the Korean version of the Western Aphasia Battery (K-WAB) pre- and post-rTMS. Magnetic resonance T1-weighted images of the brain were analyzed using SPM12 software. Montreal Neurological Institute templates and Talairach coordinates were used to determine Broca's area involvement and segregate patients into 2 groups: IBA and non-IBA (NBA) groups. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software. Twenty subjects were included in the study. The K-WAB scores revealed improvements in the total subjects and IBA and NBA groups. There were no statistical differences between the IBA and NBA groups in the ΔK-WAB scores of aphasia quotient, fluency, comprehension, repetition, and naming. The rTMS was positive for non-fluent aphasia patients, but there was no significant difference in effectiveness depending on the IBA. Further research with a larger number of patients is needed to identify the differences in the effect of rTMS on the IBA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".