Computer-aided cognitive training combined with tDCS can improve post-stroke cognitive impairment and cerebral vasomotor function: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is the focus and difficulty of poststroke rehabilitation intervention with an incidence of up to 61%, which may be related to the deterioration of cerebrovascular function. Computer-aided cognitive training (CACT) can improve cognitive function through scientific training targeting activated brain regions, becoming a popular training method in recent years. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, can regulate the cerebral vascular nerve function, and has an effect on the rehabilitation of cognitive dysfunction after stroke. This study examined the effectiveness of both CACT and tDCS on cognitive and cerebrovascular function after stroke, and explored whether CACT combined with tDCS was more effective. METHODS: A total of 72 patients with PSCI were randomly divided into the conventional cognitive training (CCT) group (n = 18), tDCS group (n = 18), CACT group (n = 18), and CACT combined with tDCS group (n = 18). Patients in each group received corresponding 20-minute treatment 15 times a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (IADL) were used to assess patients' cognitive function and the activities of daily living ability. Transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) was used to assess cerebrovascular function, including cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV), pulse index (PI), and breath holding index (BHI). These outcome measures were measured before and after treatment. RESULTS: Compared with those at baseline, both the MoCA and IADL scores significantly increased after treatment (P < 0.01) in each group. There was no significantly difference in efficacy among CCT, CACT and tDCS groups. The CACT combined with tDCS group showed greater improvement in MoCA scores compared with the other three groups (P < 0.05), especially in the terms of visuospatial and executive. BHI significantly improved only in CACT combined with tDCS group after treatment (p ≤ 0.05) but not in the other groups. Besides, no significant difference in CBFV or PI was found before and after the treatments in all groups. CONCLUSION: Both CACT and tDCS could be used as an alternative to CCT therapy to improve cognitive function and activities of daily living ability after stroke. CACT combined with tDCS may be more effective improving cognitive function and activities of daily living ability in PSCI patients, especially visuospatial and executive abilities, which may be related to improved cerebral vasomotor function reflected by the BHI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered in the Chinese Registry of Clinical Trials (ChiCTR2100054063). Registration date: 12/08/2021.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".