Safety and Efficacy of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Intervention of Cognitive Function in Elderly Sufferers with Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the safety and effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in cognitive function intervention in elderly sufferers with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods: A total of 120 subjects aged 61–87 years who suffered from AD were assigned to a control group (n = 60) and a test group (n = 60), which were given Memantine Hydrochloride Tablets intervention and 4-week TMS intervention base on Memantine Hydrochloride Tablets intervention. The cognitive functions, mental status and activities of daily living, serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ1-42) levels were estimated, and the occurrence of untoward response was recorded. Results: After a 4-week intervention, it was showed a significant difference between the Memantine Hydrochloride Tablets intervention and the TMS + Memantine Hydrochloride Tablets intervention in Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Portion (ADAS-Cog) score and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, as well as the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) score and the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale Activities of daily living (ADCS-ADL). In terms of serum BDNF, the Aβ1-42 levels were notably higher than the BDNF levels in the test group, whereas, in the control group, they were significantly lower. As for adverse reactions, chi-square test analyses corroborated no significant difference between the test group (5.00%) and the control group (8.33%). Conclusions: TMS linked with the pharmacological intervention was more favorable than the pharmacological intervention alone in improving cognitive function in elderly AD subjects, and it also reduced psycho-behavioral symptoms, improved daily living ability and had a higher safety profile.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".