MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208934773 · doi:10.1017/s003329172100430x

Intermittent theta burst stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves working memory of subjects with methamphetamine use disorder

2021· article· en· W3208934773 on OpenAlexaff
Yi Zhang, Yixuan Ku, Junfeng Sun, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Ti‐Fei Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationWorking memoryPrefrontal cortexResting state fMRIPsychologyStimulationDorsolateral prefrontal cortexNeuroscienceMethamphetamineCognitionElectroencephalographyAudiologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has been employed to treat drug dependence, reduce drug use and improve cognition. The aim of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) on cognition in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder (MUD). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of 40 MUD subjects receiving left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (L-DLPFC) iTBS or sham iTBS for 20 times over 10 days (twice-daily). Changes in working memory (WM) accuracy, reaction time, and sensitivity index were analyzed before and after active and sham rTMS treatment. Resting-state EEG was also acquired to identify potential biological changes that may relate to any cognitive improvement. RESULTS: The results showed that iTBS increased WM accuracy and discrimination ability, and improved reaction time relative to sham iTBS. iTBS also reduced resting-state delta power over the left prefrontal region. This reduction in resting-state delta power correlated with the changes in WM. CONCLUSIONS: Prefrontal iTBS may enhance WM performance in MUD subjects. iTBS induced resting EEG changes raising the possibility that such findings may represent a biological target of iTBS treatment response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MedicineSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207