Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation in the initial weeks post-stroke: a pilot randomized study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing the alterations in upper limb motor impairment and connectivity between motor areas following the post-stroke delivery of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation sessions. METHODS: Modifications in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores, connectivity between the primary motor cortex of the unaffected and affected hemispheres, and between the primary motor and premotor cortices of the unaffected hemisphere were compared prior to and following six sessions of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation application in 13 patients (active = 6; sham = 7); this modality targets the primary motor cortex of the unaffected hemisphere early after a stroke. RESULTS: Clinically relevant distinctions in Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores (≥9 points) were observed more frequently in the Sham Group than in the Active Group. Between-group differences in the alterations in Fugl-Meyer Assessment scores were not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney test, p=0.133). ROI-to-ROI correlations between the primary motor cortices of the affected and unaffected hemispheres post-therapeutically increased in 5/6 and 2/7 participants in the Active and Sham Groups, respectively. Between-group differences in modifications in connectivity between the aforementioned areas were not statistically significant. Motor performance enhancements were more frequent in the Sham Group compared to the Active Group. CONCLUSION: The results of this hypothesis-generating investigation suggest that heightened connectivity may not translate into early clinical benefits following a stroke and will be crucial in designing larger cohort studies to explore mechanisms underlying the impacts of this intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02455427.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".