MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384944074 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1216468

A protocol for a multicenter randomized and personalized controlled trial using rTMS in patients with disorders of consciousness

2023· article· en· W4384944074 on OpenAlexaff
Marie M. Vitello, Martin Rosenfelder, Paolo Cardone, Masachika Niimi, Lina Willacker, Aurore Thibaut, Nicolas Lejeune, Steven Laureys, Andreas Bender, Olivia Gosseries

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeKoning BoudewijnstichtingBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficeEuropean CommissionUniversité de LiègeBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungAstraZeneca FoundationFundação BialAstraZenecaEuropean Space AgencyFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSMind Science Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPersistent vegetative stateProtocol (science)ConsciousnessMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyMinimally conscious stateNeuroscienceAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Improving the functional recovery of patients with DoC remains one of the greatest challenges of the field. Different theories exist about the role of the anterior (prefrontal areas) versus posterior (parietal areas) parts of the brain as hotspots for the recovery of consciousness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a powerful non-invasive brain stimulation technique for the treatment of DoC. However, a direct comparison of the effect of TMS treatment on the front versus the back of the brain has yet to be performed. In this study, we aim to assess the short- and long-term effects of frontal and parietal rTMS on DoC recovery and characterize responders phenotypically. Methods/design: Ninety patients with subacute and prolonged DoC will be included in a two-part multicenter prospective study. In the first phase (randomized controlled trial, RCT), patients will undergo four rTMS sessions in a crossover design over 10 days, targeting (i) the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and (ii) the left angular gyrus (AG), as well as (iii & iv) their sham alternatives. In the second phase (longitudinal personalized trial), patients will receive personalized stimulations for 20 working days targeting the brain area that showed the best results in the RCT and will be randomly assigned to either active or sham intervention. The effects of rTMS on neurobehavioral and neurophysiological functioning in patients with DoC will be evaluated using clinical biomarkers of responsiveness (i.e., the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised; CRS-R), and electrophysiological biomarkers (e.g., power spectra, functional and effective connectivity, perturbational complexity index before and after intervention). Functional long-term outcomes will be assessed at 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Adverse events will be recorded during the treatment phase. Discussion: This study seeks to identify which brain region (front or back) is best to stimulate for the treatment of patients with DoC using rTMS, and to characterize the neural correlates of its action regarding recovery of consciousness and functional outcome. In addition, we will define the responders' profile based on patients' characteristics and functional impairments; and develop biomarkers of responsiveness using EEG analysis according to the clinical responsiveness to the treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04401319, Clinicaltrials.gov, n° NCT04401319.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207