A Study on the Effect of Executive Control Network Functional Connection on the Therapeutic Efficacy of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by brain network dysfunction. Few studies have investigated whether the functional connections between executive control networks (ECN) and other brain regions can predict the therapeutic effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the functional connectivity (FC) within ECN networks and the efficacy of rTMS. Methods: We recruited AD patients for rTMS treatment. We established an ECN using baseline period fMRI data and conducted an analysis of the ECN's FC throughout the brain. Concurrently, the support vector regression (SVR) method was employed to project post-rTMS cognitive scores, utilizing the connectional attributes of the ECN as predictive markers. Results: The average age of the patients was 66.86±8.44 years, with 8 males and 13 females. Significant improvement on most cognitive measures. We use ECN connectivity and brain region functions in baseline patients as features for SVR model training and fitting. The SVR model could demonstrate significant predictability for changes in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores among AD patients after rTMS treatment. The brain regions that contributed most to the prediction of the model (the top 10% of weights) were located in the medial temporal lobe, middle temporal gyrus, frontal lobe, parietal lobe and occipital lobe. Conclusions: The stronger the antagonism between ECN and parieto-occipital lobe function, the better the prediction of cognitive improvement; the stronger the synergy between ECN and fronto-temporal lobe function, the better the prediction of cognitive improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".