A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on cognitive function in older adults with cognitive impairments: the influence of dosage parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous studies have demonstrated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on cognitive function in the older people. This study further explores the impact of tDCS and its dosage parameters on cognitive enhancement in older people with cognitive impairments. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through November 2023 were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library. Participants were older adults with cognitive impairments, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia. AD was diagnosed based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), or the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke - Alzheimer' Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria. Dementia was diagnosed using the DSM-V or NINCDS-ADRDA criteria, while MCI was diagnosed using the DSM-V, the Petersen criteria, or assessments such as Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Standardized mean difference (SMD) values were analyzed to assess the effects. RESULTS: (SMD = 0.25, p = 0.04), session durations exceeding 20 min (SMD = 0.89, p = 0.01), up to 15 sessions (SMD = 0.28, p = 0.009), and when an active electrode was placed over the temporal area (SMD = 0.33, p = 0.02). People with AD showed greater improvements compared to those with MCI or dementia (SMD = 0.91, p = 0.02). However, tDCS did not significantly improve memory or executive function. CONCLUSION: tDCS demonstrated efficacy in enhancing global cognition in older people with cognitive impairments, providing insight into optimal parameters for clinical application. However, no improvement were observed in memory or executive function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".