GANHO COGNITIVO COM ESTIMULAÇÃO MAGNÉTICA TRANSCRANIANA EM ALVO MOTOR PÓS ACIDENTE VASCULAR CEREBRAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to verify the effects of rTMS on cognition in stroke patients after stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1). We selected 20 stroke patients from a Rehabilitation Center.They were divided into two groups: (RM1) - Right primary motor cortex and (LM1) - Left primary motor cortex. They had 20 sessions of 20 minutes each and were evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA).The MOCA test demonstrated a significant increase in total scores for the LM1 group comparing pre-and post-intervention periods [(19.55 ± 4.93) X (22.45 ± 5.32)] (p=0.006), and for the RM1 group was not statistically significant [(18.56 ± 3.05) X (20.00 ± 3.39)] (p= 0.51). The subtests that increased the overall performance in LM1 were "attention" [(3.27 ± 1.62) x (4.45 ± 1.29)] (p=0.030), "memory" [(2.27 ± 1.79) x (3.36 ± 1.86)] p= (0.026), and "abstraction" [(1.00 ± 0.89) x (1.36 ± 0.81)] (p=0.045). In RM1, the subtest "naming" showed a statistically significant increase [(2.44 ± 0.53) X (2.89 ± 0.33)] (p=0.046). This study concluded that rTMS increases general cognitive performance with repercussions in attention, memory, and abstraction when stimulated in LM1. Stimulation in RM1 increased performance in "naming" with effects on the rehabilitation process of the patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".