Effect of hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on vascular cognitive impairment: a randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) has an increasing prevalence worldwide, accounting for at least 20%–40% of all diagnoses of dementia. The decline in cognitive function seriously impairs patients’ activities of daily living and social participation and reduces their quality of life. However, there is still a lack of advanced, definitive rehabilitation programmes for VCI. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are recognised treatments for improving cognitive impairment. The former can restore oxygen supply in the brain by increasing oxygen partial pressure in brain tissue, while the latter can enhance neuronal excitability and promote synaptic plasticity. However, no studies have explored the effect of HBO combined with rTMS on VCI. Methods and analysis This study is designed as a single-centre, assessor-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with four parallel arms. A total of 72 participants will be recruited and randomly assigned to the control group, HBOT group, rTMS group and HBOT combined with rTMS group at a ratio of 1:1:1:1. All enrolled participants will receive conventional treatment. The entire intervention period is 4 weeks, with a 3-week follow-up. Outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), after a 4-week intervention (T1) and after an additional 3-week follow-up period (T2). The primary endpoint is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score. The secondary endpoints are Mini-Mental State Examination score, Modified Barthel Index score, latency and amplitude of P300, cerebral cortical oxygenated haemoglobin (HbO 2 ) and deoxygenated haemoglobin (HbR) concentrations as measured by task-state functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was obtained from the West China Hospital Clinical Trials and Biomedical Ethics Committee of Sichuan University (ethics reference: 2022 (1972)). The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through scientific conferences and seminars. Trial registration number ChiCTR2300068242.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.007 |
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".