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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bingshan Xu, Chunrong Lin, Yiwen Wang, Hong Wang, Yao Liu, Xiaojun Wang

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrative NeuroscienceSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207