MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292319854 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.121.037629

Home-Based Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Enhance Cognition in Stroke: Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4292319854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Myoung-Hwan Ko, Ju-Yul Yoon, Yun-Ju Jo, Mi-Nam Son, Da-Sol Kim, Gi-Wook Kim, Yu Hui Won, Sung-Hee Park, Jeong‐Hwan Seo, Yun‐Hee Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSamsungJeonbuk National University
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMedicineStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialCognitionPhysical therapyCognitive trainingDementiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBrain stimulationRehabilitationTrail Making TestAnalysis of varianceInternal medicineCognitive impairmentStimulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising tool for improving poststroke cognitive function. Home-based rehabilitation is increasingly required for patients with stroke, and additional benefits are expected if supplemented with remotely supervised tDCS (RS-tDCS). We evaluated the cognitive improvement effect and feasibility of RS-tDCS in patients with chronic stroke. Methods: Twenty-six patients with chronic stroke and cognitive impairment (Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment [K-MoCA] score <26) were randomized into real and sham RS-tDCS groups and underwent concurrent computerized cognitive training and RS-tDCS. Patients and caregivers underwent training to ensure correct tDCS self-application, were monitored, and treated 5 d/wk for 4 weeks. We investigated several cognition tests including K-MoCA, Korean version of the Dementia Rating Scale-2, Korean-Boston Naming Test, Trail Making Test, Go/No Go, and Controlled Oral Word Association Test at the end of the training sessions and one month later. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used for comparison between the groups and within each group. The adherence rate of the appropriate RS-tDCS session was also investigated. Results: In within-group comparison, unlike the sham group, the real group showed significant improvement in K-MoCA ( P real =0.004 versus P sham =0.132), particularly in patients with lower baseline K-MoCA (K-MoCA 10–17 ; P real =0.001 versus P sham =0.835, K-MoCA 18–25 ; P real =0.060 versus P sham =0.064) or with left hemispheric lesions (left; P real =0.010 versus P sham =0.454, right; P real =0.106 versus P sham =0.128). In between-group comparison, a significant difference was observed in K-MoCA in the lower baseline K-MoCA subgroup (K-MoCA 10–17 ; P time×group =0.048), but no significant difference was found in other cognitive tests. The adherence rate of successful application of the RS-tDCS was 98.4%, and no serious adverse effects were detected. Conclusions: RS-tDCS is a safe and feasible rehabilitation modality for poststroke cognitive dysfunction. Specifically, RS-tDCS is effective in patients with moderate cognitive decline. Additionally, these data demonstrate the potential to enhance home-based cognitive training, although significant differences were not consistently found in between-group comparisons; therefore, further larger studies are needed. Registration: URL: https://cris.nih.go.kr ; Unique identifier: KCT0003427.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations45
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207