Noninvasive neuromodulatory effect on cognition in individuals with traumatic brain injury: A single-blinded, two-arm parallel randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to compare the effect of cranial electrical stimulation (CES) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in improving cognition among individuals with mild traumatic brain injury. Patients and methods: The pretest-posttest randomized controlled study was conducted between November 2020 and March 2022. Seventy-two patients (64 males, 8 females; mean age: 40.5±9.5 years; range, 18 to 45 years) experiencing cognitive impairment within three months of traumatic brain injury were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups: Group 1 (CES with cognitive training, n=36) and Group 2 (tDCS with cognitive training, n=36). Participants were blinded in the study. Both groups received 30-min sessions of neuromodulation along with 30 min of cognitive training five days a week for four weeks. The patients were assessed at baseline and at the end of two and four weeks of intervention. The primary outcome measure was the Montreal Cognition Assessment (MoCA), and the secondary outcome measure was the Galveston Orientation Amnesia Test (GOAT). Results: Demographic and baseline characteristics depicted normal distribution for both groups (p>0.05). Within group analyses of both groups demonstrated significant differences for both outcome measures (MoCA: p=0.001; GOAT: p=0.001). Between group analyses of MoCA showed significant improvement with p-value of 0.001 while GOAT exhibited p-value of 0.002 showing significant difference between the two groups. Time group interaction effect and covariance analyses depicted significant improvement with p -value of 0.001 for both outcome measures with excellent effect size >0.80. Conclusion: Cranial electrical stimulation was a more effective noninvasive neuromodulatory device than tDCS in improving cognition among individuals with traumatic brain injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".