A randomized controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation plus donepezil vs donepezil alone for mild to moderate cognitive impairment due to small vessel cerebrovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Small vessel cerebrovascular disease (SVCVD) accounts for 35% to 67% of vascular dementias, and may be overlooked by healthcare providers due to its insidious onset. SVCVD involves chronic cerebral ischemia and hypoperfusion, endothelial dysfunction, blood-brain barrier disruption, and interstitial fluid reflux. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with donepezil hydrochloride compared to donepezil alone in the treatment of mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment in patients with SVCVD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cohort of 115 individuals with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment due to SVCVD was purposefully selected and randomized into two groups: a test group and a control group. The test group received a combination of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and oral donepezil hydrochloride (10 mg/day), while the control group received oral donepezil alone (10 mg/day). The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores were evaluated in both groups prior to and following the interventions. RESULTS: < .05 on both the MMSE and the MOCA), favoring the test group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to donepezil alone, the combination of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and donepezil has a significantly greater effect on enhancing cognitive function among individuals experiencing mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment resulting from SVCVD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".