Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Global Cognitive Functioning and Ability in Daily Life Activities in Poststroke Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation on global cognition and ability in daily life activities of patients with poststroke cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Nine electronic databases were searched from their respective inceptions through January 2022. We included the randomized controlled trials that used transcranial direct current stimulation for poststroke cognitive impairment and included at least one global cognitive function or ability in daily life activities outcome indicators. Two reviewers appraised the risks of bias through the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and performed the meta-analysis. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (1198 participants) were included. Most studies had no significant bias in the quality of the methodology. Meta-analyses found that compared with the control group, transcranial direct current stimulation increased Montreal cognitive assessment, Mini-mental state examination, Loewenstein occupational therapy cognitive assessment, total effective rate of cognition, modified Barthel Index, and decreased P300 latency (all P < 0.05). These results showed transcranial direct current stimulation can improve cognitive function and ability in daily life activities in poststroke cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The transcranial direct current stimulation may have a significant rehabilitation effect on global cognitive functioning and ability in daily life activities of patients with poststroke cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".