One Form of tDCS Does Not Fit All: The intersectionality of severity level and expected tDCS benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We investigated if a mixed group of people living with dementia (Alzheimer’s Disease (n = 16) or Frontotemporal dementia (n = 8)) would have faster response times on an N‐Back task (1‐back), a measure of working memory, after practicing the task with 20 minutes of tDCS, versus an analogous placebo condition. Crucially, half of these participants were slower than normal on the task at baseline, while the other half has normal response times. Our primary outcome measure was improvement on the MMSE task. Method Each participant practiced the n‐back in three separate nine‐session rounds, two months apart, with a different form of stimulation in each round: (1) 4mA unilateral stimulation, with one anode electrode over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex area and a cathode electrode over the occipital lobe area; (2) 4mA bilateral stimulation, using the same configuration, but with an extra active anode electrode over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and (3) SHAM stimulation. Result We found the condition x time x severity variable was significant (F (12, 264) = 2.17, p < .05), which suggests the results founds were dependent both of the tDCS montage received and the initial severity level of the participants. More specifically, as supported by post‐hoc tests, participants initially impaired on the N‐Back task improved on the MMSE when they received the bilateral tDCS montage, but those participants with normal response times improved on the MMSE when they received the unilateral tDCS montage. Conclusion Consistent with past studies, results suggest tDCS can be used to improve cognition in people living with dementia. Optimization, however, may depend both on the montage applied and the indiosyncratic nature of the participant. A bilateral montage, for example, that theoretically impacts a wider range of brain areas, may be superior to a unilateral one when people with dementia exhibit a greater degree of impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".