Effect of continuous theta burst stimulation on the glymphatic system, brain network and cognitive function in patients with cerebral small vessel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We aim to investigate the impact of continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) on glymphatic system (GS), brain network (BN) and cognition in cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). Methods This exploratory study included a small cohort of 11 patients, divided into a cTBS group (6 patients) and a sham-cTBS group (5 patients). Over a period of 2 weeks, all participants underwent cTBS to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The efficiency of the GS was assessed by along the perivascular space (ALPS) index. BN was measured using global efficiency (GE), characteristic path length (CPL) and clustering coefficient (Cp). Cognition was evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results In the cTBS group, the ALPS index increased 4 out of 6 after treatment, compared to an increase in only 2 out of 5 in the control. Improvements in GE, CPL and Cp were observed in 4 out of 6 patients in the cTBS group, whereas no improvements were noted in the control group. The MoCA scores for all patients in the cTBS improved after treatment. Additionally, completion times of the Stroop color and word test C (Stroop C) were reduced for all individuals in the cTBS group, while the control saw an increase in one case. The Digital Span Test-backward (DST-backward) scores were significantly higher in the cTBS group than those in the control. Conclusion Applying cTBS to the DLPFC in CSVD may enhance the efficiency of brain glymphatic clearance, optimize network connectivity and improve cognitive function to a certain extent.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".