Transcranial pulse stimulation in the treatment of mild neurocognitive disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are limited effectiveness and potential side effects of existing pharmacological approach in treating mild neurocognitive disorder (NCD). Transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS) applies repetitive single high-pressure ultrashort shockwave pulses to stimulate the brain, which has been shown to effectively improve cognition in major NCD. However, the effectiveness of TPS in mild NCD patients remained unknown. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of TPS with neuro-navigation in old-age adults with mild NCD by both clinical and biochemical assessments. METHODS: An open-label study recruited older adults with mild NCD to receive neuro-navigated TPS intervention for two weeks with three sessions per week. Assessments included detailed cognitive assessments, APOE genotype, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). RESULTS: Nineteen participants (12 females and 7 males) completed the whole TPS interventions with no serious adverse effects reported. Repeated measures ANOVA showed statistically significant effects of time on HK-MoCA (F (3, 54) = 4.99, P = 0.004), 30-sec interval of Verbal Fluency Test (F (3, 54) = 2.94, P = 0.041), Stroop interference (F (3, 54) = 3.46, P = 0.023), and Chinese IADL (F (3, 54) = 2.78, P = 0.050) after receiving the intervention. Bonferroni post hoc comparisons on HK-MoCA showed a significant improvement after intervention. There was no significant change in serum BDNF level. INTERPRETATION: TPS has brought significant improvement in cognition of elderly with mild NCD. It has a great potential to delay the deterioration of cognition in older adults. The long-term effect of TPS in cognition would benefit from further large-scale, randomized, sham-controlled trials.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".