Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Action Naming in Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anomia, characterized by difficulty in word retrieval, particularly action verbs, poses a significant challenge in post-stroke aphasia. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has gained attention for language processing investigations and interventions. This systematic review explores the potential of rTMS as a modality to address action-verb deficits in post-stroke aphasia. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL via Ebsco and Web of Science in February 2024 for English articles (1996-2024). Eligible studies involved post-stroke aphasia action naming rehabilitation with rTMS. In some of these studies, rTMS was combined with speech-language therapy. In total, 10 studies were included in this systematic review. These articles highlight the potential of rTMS in improving verb retrieval deficits. While significant improvements may not be evident, notable progress both before and after intervention is observed in this review. However, it also underscores the need for further research to enhance language recovery for individuals with post-stroke aphasia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".