Brain state-dependent repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for motor stroke rehabilitation: a proof of concept randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In healthy subjects, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the primary motor cortex (M1) demonstrated plasticity effects contingent on electroencephalography (EEG)-derived excitability states, defined by the phase of the ongoing sensorimotor μ-oscillation. The therapeutic potential of brain state-dependent rTMS in the rehabilitation of upper limb motor impairment post-stroke remains unexplored. Objective: Proof-of-concept trial to assess the efficacy of rTMS, synchronized to the sensorimotor μ-oscillation, in improving motor impairment and reducing upper-limb spasticity in stroke patients. Methods: We conducted a parallel group, randomized double-blind controlled trial in 30 chronic stroke patients (clinical trial registration number: NCT05005780). The experimental intervention group received EEG-triggered rTMS of the ipsilesional M1 [1,200 pulses; 0.33 Hz; 100% of the resting motor threshold (RMT)], while the control group received low-frequency rTMS of the contralesional motor cortex (1,200 pulses; 1 Hz, 115% RMT), i.e., an established treatment protocol. Both groups received 12 rTMS sessions (20 min, 3× per week, 4 weeks) followed by 50 min of physiotherapy. The primary outcome measure was the change in upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA-UE) scores between baseline, immediately post-treatment and 3 months' follow-up. Results: Both groups showed significant improvement in the primary outcome measure (FMA-UE) and the secondary outcome measures. This included the reduction in spasticity, measured objectively using the hand-held dynamometer, and enhanced motor function as measured by the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the outcome measures. Conclusion: The application of brain state-dependent rTMS for rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients is feasible. This pilot study demonstrated that the brain oscillation-synchronized rTMS protocol produced beneficial effects on motor impairment, motor function and spasticity that were comparable to those observed with an established therapeutic rTMS protocol. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier [NCT05005780].
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".