A topical reappreasal on use of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in elderly patients with postischemic stroke statuses - a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Introduction: Stroke is a cerebrovascular disease with an impressive potential of disabil-ity, (multi)morbidity, and mortality among elderly patients. After stroke, a series of seque-lae represents a dynamic challenge for rehabilitation, especially for improving motor, cognitive and depressive disorders (1,2). Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive, painless, neuromodulations and neurostimulation method, which uses electromagnetic induction to administer repeated trains of pulses, with thera-peutic, diagnostic and research purposes (3–5). Method: We performed a systematic literature review of the related literature using a widely international accepted method - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)(6), by searching, filtering, and selecting profile documen-tary material. Combinations/syntaxes of keywords were searched in the following interna-tional databases: Elsevier(7), PubMed(8), PMC(9), PEDro(10), in ISI indexed journals by Web of Knowledge/Science(11) during 1/01/2019-31/12/2021. Besides the 9 articles selected to enhance our related knowledge base we have also used some works freely identified in the literature. Results and discussions: 9 articles satisfied all the previous filtering criteria/ PRISMA steps and were selected for qualitative and detailed analysis. The benefits of rTMS, aiming to bring further insight into the responsiveness of motor deficit, depression, and cognitive impairment of the treatment, and through the favorable dynamic progress of the scores of the quantification scales used: HAMD-17/ HDRS, Hamilton Depression Scale; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assesment; SCWT, Stroop Color-Word Interference Test; WAIS, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; Barthel Index Score; ADL, Activities of Daily Living; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; FIM, Functional Independence Measures. Conclusions: Through this systematic review, we wish to present the perspective of the successful use of rTMS among elderly patients. We also intend for this work to be the start-ing point in the development of a doctoral study, which will include post-stroke sequelae, such as motor deficits, depressive and cognitive disorders, and through which we will strengthen scientific confidence in the tolerability and effectiveness of this type of stimula-tion for this segment of age.
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 | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".