Use of non-invasive neurostimulation for rehabilitation in functional movement disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional movement disorders (FMD) are a subtype of functional neurological disorders which involve abnormal movements and include multiple phenomenologies. There is a growing interest in the mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment of these disorders. Most of the current therapeutic approaches rely on psychotherapy and physiotherapy conducted by a multidisciplinary team. Although this approach has shown good results in some cases, FMD cause a great burden on the health system and other treatment strategies are urgently needed. In this review, we summarize past studies that have applied non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and peripheral nerve stimulation as a treatment for FMD. There is an increasing number of studies related to TMS including randomized controlled trials; however, the protocols amongst studies are not standardized. There is only preliminary evidence for the efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation in reducing FMD symptoms, and further studies are needed. There is insufficient evidence to allow implementation of these techniques in clinical practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".