Intermittent theta burst stimulation vs. high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke cognitive impairment: Protocol of a pilot randomized controlled double-blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), a novel mode of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), has curative effects on patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). However, whether iTBS will be more applicable in clinical use than conventional high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is unknown. Our study aims to compare the difference in effect between iTBS and rTMS in treating PSCI based on a randomized controlled trial, as well as to determine its safety and tolerability, and to further explore the underlying neural mechanism. Methods: The study protocol is designed as a single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Forty patients with PSCI will be randomly assigned to two different TMS groups, one with iTBS and the other with 5 Hz rTMS. Neuropsychological evaluation, activities of daily living, and resting electroencephalography will be conducted before treatment, immediately post-treatment, and 1 month after iTBS/rTMS stimulation. The primary outcome is the change in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Beijing Version (MoCA-BJ) score from baseline to the end of the intervention (D11). The secondary outcomes comprise changes in resting electroencephalogram (EEG) indexes from baseline to the end of the intervention (D11) as well as the Auditory Verbal Learning Test, the symbol digit modality test, the Digital Span Test findings, and the MoCA-BJ scores from baseline to endpoint (W6). Discussion: In this study, the effects of iTBS and rTMS will be evaluated using cognitive function scales in patients with PSCI as well as data from resting EEG, which allows for an in-depth exploration of underlying neural oscillations. In the future, these results may contribute to the application of iTBS for cognitive rehabilitation of patients with PSCI.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".