10-Day Theta Burst Stimulation Intervention Facilitates the Clinical Rehabilitation of Patients After an Isolated Limb Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated if theta burst stimulation could enhance recovery by reducing key symptoms when implemented acutely postfracture in participants with an isolated upper limb fracture. METHODS/DESIGN: This was a pilot study with a randomized matched pair, sham-controlled, participant-blind design of a 10-day prolonged continuous theta burst stimulation protocol. Two main groups were included: I) participants with isolated upper limb fracture receiving active theta burst stimulation and II) patients with isolated upper limb fracture receiving SHAM/placebo. Another group (III) of healthy individuals was the reference group. Disability and pain intensity were collected through questionnaires (disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand as well as numerical rating scale (NRA)) at three time points (baseline; 72 hrs after intervention, 3 mos after injury). Group III completed the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Seventy-nine participants were enrolled. Individuals in the ACTIVE and SHAM groups had similar baseline measures. For disability, the interaction between intervention and time approached significance (F = 2.33; P = 0.11), whereas it was significant for pain (F = 3.42; P = 0.04). At 3 mos after injury, the ACTIVE group reported reduced disability (F = 4.71; P = 0.04) and pain (F = 5.84; P = 0.02) at 3 mos after injury compared to the SHAM group, with clinical measures from ACTIVE group being like controls. CONCLUSIONS: In isolated upper limb fracture patients, a 10-day theta burst stimulation intervention implemented acutely posttrauma had beneficial effects on symptoms of functional recovery and pain at 3 mos after trauma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".