Efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition in mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease-related dementias, and other cognitive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of TMS on cognition in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease (AD), AD-related dementias, and nondementia conditions with comorbid cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Systematic review, Meta-Analysis SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus from January 1, 2000, to February 9, 2023. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: RCTs, open-label, and case series studies reporting cognitive outcomes following TMS intervention were included. MEASUREMENT: Cognitive and safety outcomes were measured. Cochrane Risk of Bias for RCTs and MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) criteria were used to evaluate study quality. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022326423). RESULTS: The systematic review included 143 studies (n = 5,800 participants) worldwide, encompassing 94 RCTs, 43 open-label prospective, 3 open-label retrospective, and 3 case series. The meta-analysis included 25 RCTs in MCI and AD. Collectively, these studies provide evidence of improved global and specific cognitive measures with TMS across diagnostic groups. Only 2 studies (among 143) reported 4 adverse events of seizures: 3 were deemed TMS unrelated and another resolved with coil repositioning. Meta-analysis showed large effect sizes on global cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination (SMD = 0.80 [0.26, 1.33], p = 0.003), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (SMD = 0.85 [0.26, 1.44], p = 0.005), Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SMD = -0.96 [-1.32, -0.60], p < 0.001)) in MCI and AD, although with significant heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The reviewed studies provide favorable evidence of improved cognition with TMS across all groups with cognitive impairment. TMS was safe and well tolerated with infrequent serious adverse events.
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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".