Sham‐controlled randomized multicentre trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for prolonged disorders of consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to improve signs of consciousness in a subset of patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC). However, no multicentre study confirmed its efficacy when applied during rehabilitation. In this randomized controlled double-blind study, the effects of tDCS whilst patients were in rehabilitation were tested at the group level and according to their diagnosis and aetiology to better target DoC patients who might repond to tDCS. METHODS: Patients received 2 mA tDCS or sham applied over the left prefrontal cortex for 4 weeks. Behavioural assessments were performed weekly and up to 3 months' follow-up. Analyses were conducted at the group and subgroup levels based on the diagnosis (minimally conscious state [MCS] and unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) and the aetiology (traumatic or non-traumatic). Interim analyses were planned to continue or stop the trial. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for futility when 62 patients from 10 centres were enrolled (44 ± 14 years, 37 ± 24.5 weeks post-injury, 18 women, 32 MCS, 39 non-traumatic). Whilst, at the group level, no treatment effect was found, the subgroup analyses at 3 months' follow-up revealed a significant improvement for patients in MCS and with traumatic aetiology. CONCLUSIONS: Transcranial direct current stimulation during rehabilitation does not seem to enhance patients' recovery. However, diagnosis and aetiology appear to be important factors leading to a response to the treatment. These findings bring novel insights into possible cortical plasticity changes in DoC patients given these differential results according to the subgroups of patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".