Intermittent theta burst stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves working memory of subjects with methamphetamine use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".