MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401580037 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2024.1439904

Effect of short-term 10 Hz repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation on postural control ability in patients with mild hemiparesis in acute ischemic stroke: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4401580037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiangping Ma, Siyu Qian, Nuo Ma, Lu Zhang, Linghao Xu, Xueyuan Liu, Guilin Meng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Commission of Shanghai MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineGaitRehabilitationHemiparesisTinetti testStroke (engine)Transcranial magnetic stimulationPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialTimed Up and Go testBalance (ability)StimulationSurgeryLesionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can improve postural control in subacute and chronic ischemic stroke, but further research is needed to investigate the effect of rTMS on acute ischemic stroke. Objective: We compared the therapeutic effects of rTMS plus conventional rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation on postural control in patients with mild hemiparesis in acute ischemic stroke. Methods: Eighty-six patients with acute ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group within 1-7 days of onset. Patients in both groups received conventional rehabilitation for 2 weeks. Patients in the experimental group received rTMS treatments lasting for 2 weeks. Before and after the 2-week treatment, patients were assessed based on the Timed up and Go (TUG) test, Dual-Task Walking (DTW) test, Functional Ambulation Category (FAC), Tinetti Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA), gait kinematic parameters, Barthel Index (BI), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Additionally, TUG and single-task gait velocity were assessed at 2 months after the start of treatment, and independent walking recovery was also followed up. Results: After 2 weeks of treatment, compared to conventional rehabilitation, participants who underwent rTMS treatment plus conventional rehabilitation exhibited notable enhancements in TUG, FAC, POMA, and some gait parameters [single-task gait velocity, gait stride length, gait cadence, gait cycle]. Changes in cognitive function partially mediated the improvement in single-task gait velocity and gait stride length by rTMS plus conventional rehabilitation. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis showed that the trend of improvement in single-task gait velocity over time was more pronounced in the experimental group than in the control group. The results of the Kaplan-Meier curve indicated a median gait recovery time of 90 days for patients in the experimental group and 100 days for the control group. Multifactorial Cox regression analyses showed that rTMS plus conventional rehabilitation promoted faster recovery of independent walking compared with conventional rehabilitation. Conclusion: rTMS plus conventional rehabilitation outperformed conventional rehabilitation in improving postural control in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Improvements in cognitive function may serve as a mediating factor in the favorable treatment outcome of rTMS plus conventional rehabilitation for improving postural control. Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR1900026225.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207