Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Plus Early Rehabilitation Therapy on Cerebral Cognitive Function, Hemodynamics and Life Qualityin Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the implementation of Health China strategy, rehabilitation medicine, as an important branch of medicine, plays an increasingly important role in China’s health. Objective: This paper aims to inquire into the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) plus early rehabilitation therapy on cerebral cognitive function, hemodynamics and quality of life (QOL) in patients with cerebral infarction (CI). Methods: One hundred and eight Clpatients treated in our hospital were randomized into the observation group (OG; n=63) for TDCS plus early rehabilitation therapy and the control group (CG; n=45) for early rehabilitation therapy alone. The changes of hemodynamic index before and after treatment were observed. The eurological deficit [neurological deficit score (NDS)] and cognitive impairment [mini-mental state examination (MMSE)], as well as activity of daily living (ADL; Barthel score) and motor function [Fugl Meyer assessment (FMA)] were compared between the two series. The assessment of neurological function recovery of patients in the two cohors was performed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). The therapeutic effect of the two groups was compared, as well as the post-treatment QOL referring to the questionnaire of QOL of patients with acute CI. Results: The post-treatment hemodynamic indexes increased in both OG and CG, and the increase was more profound in OG (p<0.05). After treatment, the NDS score in OG was lower while the MMSE score was higher as compared to CG (p<0.05). The Barthel score and the FMA score increased in both groups after treatment, with higher scores in OG (p<0.05). The NIHSS score of both groups decreased post treatment, and the score was lower in OG (p<0.05). OG presented with notably higher total effective rate (p=0.028) and superior QOL than CG (p<0.05). Conclusions: TDCS plus early rehabilitation therapy is effective for patients with early CI, which can enormously improve the neurological function, hemodynamics, activity ability and QOL of patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".