Effect of Vagal Nerve Stimulation on Cognitive Impairment Among Subjects with Anterior Cerebral Artery Syndrome: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive dysfunction, including impairments in attention, memory, executive function, andprocessing speed. This study was developed to determine the effectiveness of transcutaneous auricular vagalnerve stimulation on cognitive impairment among subjects with anterior cerebral artery syndrome.Purpose: The purpose of the study is to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of two non-pharmacologicalmethods of treatment for cognitive impairment patients with ACA syndrome.Material and Methods: The project was conducted as a pilot study in a private hospital in Chennai. Theexperimental group (group A) received transcutaneous auricular vagal nerve stimulation for 20 minutes andconventional strengthening exercises for the affected limb for 10 minutes. Group B got conventional cognitivetraining (20 minutes) and strengthening exercises (10 minutes). Following the four-week treatment, a post-testanalysis was performed using the Montreal cognitive assessment scale.Results: The post-test analysis obtained a mean value of about 27.25 and SD 1.5 for group A, whereas group Brevealed 22.75 ± 1.25, mean ± SD, and a significant P value of 0.004.Conclusion: Non-invasive transcutaneous auricular vagal nerve stimulation has been proven to be an effectiveapproach for preventing vascular dementia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".