A translational roadmap for transcranial magnetic and direct current stimulation in stroke rehabilitation: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The purpose of this Third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR3) was to develop consensus recommendations to address outstanding barriers for the translation of preclinical and clinical research using the non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and provide a roadmap for the integration of these techniques into clinical practice. METHODS: International NIBS and stroke recovery experts (N = 18) contributed to the consensus process. Using a nominal group technique, recommendations were reached via a five-stage process, involving a thematic survey, two priority ranking surveys, a literature review and an in-person meeting. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Results of our consensus process yielded five key evidence-based and feasibility barriers for the translation of preclinical and clinical NIBS research, which were formulated into five core consensus recommendations. Recommendations highlight an urgent need for (1) increased understanding of NIBS mechanisms, (2) improved methodological rigor in both preclinical and clinical NIBS studies, (3) standardization of outcome measures, (4) increased clinical relevance in preclinical animal models, and (5) greater optimization and individualization of NIBS protocols. To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, the expert panel developed a new SRRR3 Unified NIBS Research Checklist. These recommendations represent a translational pathway for the use of NIBS in stroke rehabilitation research and practice.
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 | 0.409 | 0.412 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".