Intermittent theta burst stimulation for poststroke non-spatial attention deficit: a protocol of prospective, double-blinded, single-centre, randomised controlled trial in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Attention deficit is the most common cognitive impairment after stroke, which can significantly hinder the recovery of both other cognitive domains and motor functions. Increasing evidence suggests that the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is related to non-spatial attention functions, which indicates that it may be a promising target of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating poststroke non-spatial attention deficit. Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a modified pattern of rTMS that delivers shorter stimulation times and exhibits superior therapeutic efficacy. This study aims to provide evidence regarding the efficacy of intermittent TBS (iTBS) over the left DLPFC to improve poststroke non-spatial attention deficits and elucidate the potential neurophysiological mechanisms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this single-centre, prospective, randomised, sham-controlled clinical trial, patients with non-spatial attention deficits (n=38) received 10 sessions of real iTBS (n=19) or sham iTBS (n=19) over the left DLPFC and a 30-min conventional attention training. Neuropsychological evaluations, electrophysiological examination and neuroimaging scan will be conducted at baseline, postintervention (second week) and 2-week follow-up (fourth week). The primary outcomes are the change in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores and the Digital Span Test scores from baseline to the end of the intervention (second week). The secondary outcomes comprise changes in magnetic resonance spectroscopy neuroimaging from baseline to the end of the intervention (second week) as well as attention test batteries (including tests of selective attention, sustained attention, divided attention and shifting attention) and ERP P300 from baseline to endpoint (fourth week). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee of Tongji Hospital (ID: TJ-IRB20230879). All participants will sign the informed consent. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300068669.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".