Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for apathy in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, cognitive impairment, stroke, and traumatic brain injury: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We aimed to determine the effects and tolerability of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on apathy in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), stroke, and traumatic brain injury (TBI) via systematic review. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in major electronic health databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and PsycINFO, covering the period from inception to June 2023. Comparative clinical trials and cohort studies, and studies with before-after designs were considered for inclusion. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) tools to assess methodological quality. Results: Out of 258 records identified, 14 studies met our eligibility criteria (11 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 3 studies utilized before-and-after designs) with a total of 418 patients (overall female-to-male ratio 1:1.17) included in the review. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was assessed to be fair to good. The stimulation parameters used varied considerably across the studies. The summary findings of our review indicate the following observations on the effects of rTMS on apathy: (1) the results of all included studies in Alzheimer's disease investigating the effects of rTMS on apathy have consistently shown a positive impact on apathy; (2) the majority of studies conducted in Parkinson's disease have not found statistically significant results; (3) a single study (RCT) on patients with primary progressive aphasia demonstrated significant beneficial effects of rTMS on apathy; (4) the trials conducted on individuals with MCI yielded varying conclusions; (5) one study (RCT) in chronic stroke suggested that rTMS might have the potential to improve apathy; (6) one study conducted on individuals with mild TBI did not find a significant favorable association on apathy; and (7) the use of different rTMS protocols on the populations described is generally safe. Conclusion: The feasibility of utilizing rTMS as a treatment for apathy has been suggested in this review. Overall, limited evidence suggests that rTMS intervention may have the potential to modify apathy among patients with AD, PPA, MCI and chronic stroke, but less so in PD and mild TBI. These findings require confirmation by larger, well-designed clinical 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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".