MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403475153 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2024.1480171

Efficacy of high-frequency rTMS in the treatment of gait disorder and cognition in patients with Parkinson’s disease based on wearable devices and eye-movement assessments

2024· article· en· W4403475153 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hong Yin Tang, Peng Li, Pengfei Zhang, Jian Yao, Yilan Xing, Xin Zhao, Xuying He, Jie Zan, Guihua Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTinetti testGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionPsychologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentGait analysisNeurorehabilitationMedicineNeuroscienceRehabilitationCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Postural instability and gait disorder and cognitive dysfunction are common symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Scale assessment is frequently used in the clinic to evaluate PD, but this technique is limited by its lack of sensitivity to changes in disease progression and its difficulty in capturing subtle movements and changes in cognitive function. It is currently believed that high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can improve motor and cognitive dysfunction in patients with PD, though it remains controversial. Therefore, it is imperative to monitor and dynamically identify changes in postural instability and gait disorder, as well as those in cognitive dysfunction, in PD to develop targeted interventions. In this study, we observed the effect of high-frequency rTMS on gait disorders and cognitive functions in patients with PD by comparing data from wearable devices and eye-tracking devices before and after treatment. Methods: A total of 159 patients with PD were included in this study. A GYENNO MATRIX wearable gait analyzer was used to monitor the objective gait data (including the timed up-and-go, narrow-track, and turning tests), the Eyeknow eye-tracking evaluation system was used to monitor the patient's eye movement cognition data (including the smooth pursuit, pro-saccade, and anti-saccade tests), and gait and cognitive function-related scales, including the Tinetti Balance Scale, Tinetti Gait Scale, Berg Balance Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), were evaluated at the same time before and after high-frequency rTMS treatment. Results: The mean step length, mean stride velocity, stride length, and mean step frequency of patients with PD in the timed up-and-go test all increased compared with those before rTMS treatment, whereas the mean stride time and double support decreased. In the narrow-track test, the mean stride velocity increased and the mean stride time decreased. In the turning test, the turning left duration, turning right duration, mean duration, mean number of steps, and average step duration decreased, while the mean angular velocity increased after rTMS treatment. Compared with those before rTMS treatment, the latency period of patients with PD in overlapping saccades decreased, the completion time of overlapping saccades decreased, and the average saccade speed increased. In the anti-saccade test, the completion time decreased and the average saccade speed increased after rTMS treatment. Compared with those before rTMS treatment, the Tinetti Balance Scale, Tinetti Gait Scale, Berg Balance Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and MoCA scores increased, and the MoCA sub-items improved in terms of visual-spatial and executive function, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation after rTMS treatment. Conclusion: High-frequency rTMS may be an effective therapy for improving gait disorders and cognitive functions in patients with PD.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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