MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402006417 · doi:10.31083/j.jin2308161

Using Dual-Target rTMS, Single-Target rTMS, or Sham rTMS on Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment

2024· article· en· W4402006417 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyTranscranial magnetic stimulationStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentDual (grammatical number)NeuroscienceCognitionMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The clinical application of 10 Hz repetitive transcranil magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains limited despite its demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing cortical excitability and improving cognitive function. The present study used a novel stimulus target [left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex + primary motor cortex] to facilitate the enhancement of cognitive function through the bidirectional promotion of cognitive and motor functions; Methods: Post-stroke cognitive impairment patients (n = 48) were randomly assigned to receive either dual-target, single-target, or sham rTMS for 4 weeks. Before and after 4 weeks of treatment, participants were asked to complete the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test, the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), the Trail-making Test (TMT), and the Digital Span Test (DST). In addition, the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in serum were also measured. Results: After adjusting for pre-intervention (baseline) MoCA scores, the post-intervention MoCA scores varied significantly. After post-hoc analysis, differences existed between the post-treatment scores of the dual-target rTMS group and the sham rTMS group (the experimental group scores were significantly higher), and between those of the dual-target rTMS group and the single-target rTMS group (the dual-target rTMS scores were significantly higher). The serum VEGF levels of the dual-target rTMS group were significantly higher those that of the sham rTMS group. Conclusions: The present study presented data showing that a dual-target rTMS therapy is effective for Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). The stimulation exhibited remarkable efficacy, suggesting that dual-target stimulation (left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex+motor cortex (L-DLPFC+M1)) holds promise as a potential target for TMS therapy in individuals with cognitive impairment after stroke. Clinical Trial Registration: No: ChiCTR220066184. Registered 26 November, 2022, https://www.chictr.org.cn.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.258 · 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