Efficacy and sustainability of 40 Hz high‐definition transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) in the treatment of sleep disturbances in mild neurocognitive disorders due to Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background To investigate the effects of 40 Hz high‐definition transcranial alternating current stimulation (HD‐tACS) on subjective sleep quality and domain‐specific cognitive functions in mild neurocognitive disorders due to Alzheimer’s disease (NCD‐AD). Method This study was a double blind, sham‐controlled randomized clinical trial. Ninety‐nine mild NCD‐AD patients were randomly assigned to receive a 4‐week course treatment of either 40 Hz HD‐tACS, HD transcranial direct current stimulation (HD‐tDCS), or sham transcranial current stimulation (HD‐tCS). Global cognition was assessed by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Subjective sleep quality was assessed by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). PSQI total score>5 was defined as sleep disturbances. Result The mean score of PSQI was 11.7 in mild NCD‐AD patients. Repeated sessions of 40 Hz HD‐tACS and HD‐tDCS treatments significantly enhanced the subjective sleep quality and cognition. Compared with HD‐tDCS, the individuals who received 40 Hz HD‐tACS had more improvement on sleep quality (score changes of PSQI: 6.01 vs. 3.72, p<0.001) and cognitive function (MoCA: 2.5 vs.1.5, p<0.01) during a 2‐month follow‐up period. Conclusion Mild NCD‐AD patients with sleep disturbances who received 40 Hz HD‐tACS had pronounced enhancement in subjective sleep quality and global cognition. To identify novel modality of transcranial brain stimulation is important toward an effective strategy for the comorbidities in preclinical AD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".