Impact of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Cognitive and Psychiatric Dysfunction in Patients with Fibromyalgia: A Double-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few randomized controlled trials have reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has controversial results for managing multiple domains of fibromyalgia-related symptoms. This work aimed to evaluate the effect of low-frequency rTMS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal area (DLPFC) on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) concerning psychiatric and cognitive disorders. Forty-two eligible patients with fibromyalgia (FM) were randomized to have 20 sessions of active or sham rTMS (1 Hz, 120% of resting motor threshold with a total of 1200 pules/session) over the right DLPFC. All participants were evaluated at baseline, post sessions, and 3 months after sessions with the FIQ, Hamilton depression, and anxiety rating scales (HDRS and HARS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Tower of London test (TOL), the Trail Making, and Digit Span Tests. Both groups showed improvement in most rating scales at 1 and 3 months follow-up, with greater improvement in the active group, with significant correlation between FIQ cognitive rating scales, including RAVLT and TOL. Twenty sessions of low-frequency rTMS over the right DLPFC can improve FIQ scores regarding the psychiatric and cognitive symptoms of medicated patients with FM to a greater extent than sham. Changes in RAVLT and TOL correlated with changes in FIQ results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".