MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407684969 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.02.009

Efficacy and safety of high-dose and personalized TBS on post-stroke cognitive impairment: A randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4407684969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianxun Ren, Wenlong Su, Ying Zhou, Kaiyue Han, Ruiqi Pan, Xinyu Duan, Jiajie Liu, Haitao Lu, Ping Zhang, Wei Zhang, Jian Sun, Mengying Ding, Yafei Zhu, Wuxiang Xie, Jianting Huang, Hao Zhang, Hesheng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPostdoctoral Research Foundation of ChinaChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineCognitive impairmentCognitionStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairments are prevalent among stroke patients, impacting independent living. While intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) shows potential for rehabilitation, the efficacy of the commonly-used doses remains unsatisfactory. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, dose-dependent effect, and safety of high-dose iTBS targeting the individualized frontoparietal cognitive network (FCN) for post-stroke cognitive recovery. METHODS: In a randomized, sham-controlled, three-arm trial, patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) received 15 days of high-dose (3600 pulses/day), standard low-dose (1200 pulses/day) as an active control, or sham iTBS targeting the individualized FCN, alongside cognitive training. Primary outcome measured changes in global cognition via the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Secondary measures included MoCA response rates and score changes in the Wechsler Memory Scale, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and Mini-Mental State Examination. RESULTS: Of forty-five randomized participants, forty-one (8 women; mean [SD] age, 58.63 [8.64] years) were analyzed. Personalized targeting improved focality by 33.0 % over the standard F3 target in E-field analysis. Both high-dose and standard low-dose groups showed significant improvements in MoCA. Importantly, the high-dose group demonstrated superior cognitive recovery over both the active control group (estimated difference = 2.50, p = 0.0339, 95 % CI = 0.15-4.84) and the sham control group (estimated difference = 4.29, p = 0.0001, 95 % CI = 1.99-6.60), indicating a superior effect of high-dose stimulation for cognitive recovery. Similar high-dose and dose-dependent effects were observed in other secondary outcomes, suggesting consistent effects on the memory, intelligence, and mental state. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the efficacy and safety of high-dose iTBS targeting the individualized FCN for post-stroke cognitive recovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations23
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207