Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Post-stroke Patients with Motor and Speech Disturbances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objective: To assess the efficiency of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a component of rehabilitation measures in ischemic stroke patients with motor and speech disturbances. Study Design: prospective study. Materials and Methods. We tested 77 patients in the early rehabilitation period after ischemic stroke using Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Wassermann Scale, Dysarthria Assessment Scale, Locus of Control Recovery Assessment Scale, Medical Research Committee Scale, Franchay Scale. Study Results. Distal muscle strength in paralytic upper extremity improved in patients who were treated with motor zone tDCS (p < 0.05). Franchay Scale results during rehabilitation demonstrated improvements in all study groups (p < 0.05). “Attention” sub-scale results in Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Locus of Control Recovery Assessment Scale were statistically higher in patients who were treated with speech zone tDCS. Conclusion. Use of tDCS in stroke patients improves cognitive functions in naming objects, speech functions, and patients’ motivation to rehabilitation grows, positively impacting their quality of life. Use of tDCS in motor zones facilitates motor function improvement and enhances dexterity of stroke patients. When electrodes were used in speech zones, anxiety and depression reduced, while attention improved. Keywords: transcranial direct current stimulation, ischemic stroke, motor disturbances, aphasia, dysarthria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".