Self-administered transcranial direct current stimulation for pain in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain in older adults. Previous studies indicated clinic-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was effective to reduce pain in various populations, but no published studies have reported the efficacy of home-based self-administered tDCS in older adults with knee OA using a randomized clinical study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of tDCS on clinical pain intensity in adults with knee OA pain. METHODS: One hundred twenty participants aged 50-85 years with knee OA pain were randomly assigned to receive fifteen daily sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 min (n = 60) or sham tDCS (n = 60) over 3 weeks with remote supervision via telehealth. Clinical pain intensity was measured by the Numeric Rating Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Also, we collected data on the tDCS experience via a questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants (68% female) had a mean age of 66 years. Active tDCS significantly reduced pain intensity compared to sham tDCS after completion of the fifteen daily sessions (Cohen's d = 1.20; p-value < 0.0001). Participants showed high levels of satisfaction with their tDCS experience, and there have been no adverse events. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that home-based self-administered tDCS was feasible and reduced clinical pain intensity in older adults with knee OA, which can increase its accessibility. Future studies with multi-site randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04016272.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".