MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286203317 · doi:10.1002/brb3.2697

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on gait disorders and cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4286203317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangxi Medical UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationParkinson's diseaseDeep transcranial magnetic stimulationGaitMeta-analysisCognitionNeuroscienceMedicineDiseasePsychologyStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is acknowledged to be crucial to manage freezing of gait (FOG) and cognitive impairment for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), but its effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of rTMS on FOG and cognitive function in people with PD and to investigate potential factors that modulate the rTMS effects. METHODS: Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 31, 2021. Eligible studies include a controlled randomized clinical trial of rTMS intervention for FOG and cognitive dysfunction in PD patients. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with fixed-effects models. The outcome of the study included gait and cognitive assessments. RESULTS: Sixteen studies with a total of 419 patients were included. Fixed-effects analysis revealed that rTMS was effective in improving freezing of gait questionnaire scores (short-term effect: WMD = -0.925, 95% CI: -1.642 to -0.209, p = .011; long-term effect: WMD = -2.120, 95% CI: -2.751 to -1.489, p = .000), 10-m walking time (short-term effect: WMD = -0.456, 95% CI: -0.793 to -0.119, p = .008; long-term effect: WMD = -0.526, 95% CI: -0.885 to -0.167, p = .004), Timed Up-and-Go scores (short-term effect: WMD = -1.064, 95% CI: -1.555 to -0.572, p = .000; long-term effect: WMD = -1.097, 95% CI: -1.422 to -0.772, p = .000), Montreal cognitive assessment (WMD = 3.714, 95% CI: 2.567 to 4.861, p = .000), and frontal assessment battery (WMD = -0.584, 95% CI: -0.934 to -0.234, p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: RTMS showed a beneficial effect on FOG and cognitive dysfunction in parkinsonism. However, the optimal rTMS protocol has not been determined and further high-quality studies are needed.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.267 · 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