MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296614867 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.09.003

The efficacy and safety of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation in patients with mild cognitive impairment: A double blinded randomized clinical trial

2022· article· en· W4296614867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lei Wang, Jinling Zhang, Chunlei Guo, Jiakai He, Shuai Zhang, Yu Wang, Ya-Nan Zhao, Liang Li, Junying Wang, Liwei Hou, Shaoyuan Li, Yifei Wang, Lixiao Hao, Yufeng Zhao, Mozheng Wu, Jiliang Fang, Peijing Rong

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineVagus nerve stimulationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialEpworth Sleepiness ScaleAnesthesiaTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationPhysical therapyDementiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVagus nerveStimulationSurgeryInternal medicinePolysomnographyApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are 9.9 million new cases of dementia in the world every year. Short-term conversion rate from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia is between 20% and 40%, but long-term in 5-10 years ranges from 60% to 100%. It is particularly important to prevent or prolong the development of MCI into dementia. Both auriculotherapy and vagus nerve stimulation are effective on improving cognitive functions. However, there is no double blinded randomized clinical trial to support the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical stimulation of auricular acupoints in patients with MCI. METHODS: ), which are out of the distribution of vagus nerve. The primary outcome was the Montreal cognitive assessment-basic, MOCA-B. The secondary outcomes included auditory verbal learning test-HuaShan version (AVLT-H), shape trails test A&B (STT-A&B), animal fluence test (AFT), Boston naming test (BNT), Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder screening questionnaire (RBDSQ), Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS) and functional activities questionnaire (FAQ). These outcome measures were taken at baseline, 24 weeks later. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of intervention, the data of 52 patients were intended for analysis. After intervention, there was significant difference in the overall scores of MoCA-B between taVNS group and sham taVNS group (p = 0.033 < 0.05). In taVNS group, compared with before intervention, the overall scores of MOCA-B increased significantly after intervention (p < 0.001). As for N5 and N7, the two sub-indicators of AVLT-H, in taVNS group, compared with before intervention, both N5 and N7 increased significantly after intervention (both ps < 0.001). As for STTB, in taVNS group, compared with before intervention, STTB was significantly reduced after intervention (p = 0.016). For BNT, in taVNS group, compared with before intervention, BNT increased significantly after intervention (p < 0.001). In taVNS group, compared with before intervention, PSQI, RBDSQ, ESS and FAQ decreased significantly after intervention (p = 0.002, 0.025, <0.001, 0.006 respectively). 1 patient with a history of tympanic membrane perforation in taVNS group was reported with mild adverse reactions which disappeared a week after termination of taVNS. The intervention of taVNS is effective on increasing the overall scores of MoCA-B, N5 and N7. CONCLUSION: The clinical trial demonstrated that taVNS can improve cognitive performance in patients with MCI. This inexpensive, effective and innovative method can be recommended as a therapy for more patients with MCI in the prevention or prolonging of its development into dementia, but it is still required to be further investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn. (ID: ChiCTR2000038868).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations134
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207