Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Auricular Point Pressure Bean on Emotional Disorders in Elderly Patients after Intracerebral Hemorrhage Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether the combination of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and auricular point pressure bean could effectively ameliorate postoperative affective disorder in elderly patients suffering from cerebral hemorrhage. Methods: From June 2020 to September 2023, 116 elderly patients with depression after cerebral hemorrhage, who underwent surgical procedures were divided into the exposure group and the control group. The division was determined based on whether received rTMS and traditional Chinese medicine auricular point pressure bean therapy. Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA), Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD), National Institutes of Health Stroke scale (NIHSS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA) and Mini Mental State examination scale (MMSE) were collected and compared between before intervention and after intervention. Results: < .001). Conclusion: The combination of rTMS therapy and auricular point pressure bean therapy in traditional Chinese medicine demonstrates can effectively relieve the anxiety level, postoperative emotional and cognitive disorders of elderly patients after intracerebral hemorrhage, and provide certain ideas and support for clinical treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".