MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406396091 · doi:10.1161/svin.04.suppl_1.032

Abstract 032: TOPSS: TOlerability of tDCS in Pediatric Stroke Survivors

2024· article· en· W4406396091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheila Fraser, A. Clearman, Melika Abrahams, Bernadette T. Gillick, Tia Lal, Sean I. Savitz, Nuray Yozbatıran

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineStroke (engine)Transcranial direct-current stimulationPsychologyInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Pediatric cerebrovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity in children. Childhood‐onset stroke is defined as stroke occurring after the first month of life and accounts for about half of pediatric stroke. Most children with childhood‐onset stroke will survive to adulthood, but ~75% of those with childhood‐onset stroke experience long‐term neurologic impairments, including motor weakness and cognitive difficulties. Hemiparesis is a frequent complication of childhood‐onset stroke and is tremendously debilitating. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising and inexpensive non‐invasive neuromodulation technique that can be used to augment neuronal plasticity as an adjunctive rehabilitation therapy. Methods Participants with chronic hemiparesis from childhood‐onset ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke were prospectively enrolled in this study. All study participants received 5 sessions of tDCS lasting for 20 minutes each while engaging in 1‐on‐1 occupational therapy with a certified occupational therapist. tDCS sessions were followed by an additional 1 hour and 40 minutes of rehabilitation therapy focused on the impaired arm. The amplitude of stimulation was increased daily as follows: sham stimulation on day 1, 0.5mA on day 2, 1.0mA on day 3, 4, and 5. Participants aged 13‐19 years had stimulation further increased to 1.5mA on days 4 and 5. The primary objective measures were safety and tolerability which were assessed with percent study completion, participant tolerability questionnaires, and pre‐ and post‐ stimulation vital signs. Secondary outcome measures included arm function measured using the Fugl‐Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA‐UE) and box and blocks test. Satisfaction was measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). A data safety and monitoring board comprised of a pediatric neurologist and pediatric physiatrist reviewed all stimulation monitoring sheets. Results Five participants completed the study. Blood pressure and pulse measurements were within normal limits for all participants for all pre‐ and post‐therapy measurements. Participants reported itching sensations during 40% of tDCS sessions, with reports extinguishing within minutes after cessation of tDCS. The Fugl‐Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity is a functional scale with a score range of 0 (profound hemiplegia) to 66 (no impairment). An improvement of 5 points may be considered clinically significant. The median score was 35 at the pre‐therapy assessment, and improved to 42 at the 3 month follow up. 4 out of 5 participants had a clinically significant increase in the Fugl‐Meyer Assessment. Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance score was 4 at baseline and improved to 6.4 at 3 month follow up. Conclusion tDCS was well‐tolerated in this pilot study of tDCS in participants with chronic hemiparesis from childhood‐onset stroke. There were no major adverse events, and the most common reported side effects were mild itching or tingling which did not limit participation. Fugl‐Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity scores improved an average of 7 points 3 months post therapy. Further research with larger, double‐blinded, sham controlled studies is needed. We will continue further research into the utility of tDCS for childhood‐onset stroke with a single center, double‐blinded, randomized controlled trial of tDCS vs sham with a goal enrollment of 20 participants.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207