The effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the brain of non-human primates with chronic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke is the second cause of death worldwide, causing motor sequels that impact patients' independence long term.While rehabilitation offers benefits, its effects are modest, making the development of adjunct therapies an urgent need.Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a potential tool to improve post-stroke recovery by modulating cortical excitability.However, our current limited understanding of the mechanism through which rTMS can modulate the brain limits its clinical application.This study aims to assess the effectiveness and variability of commonly employed rTMS protocols using a non-human primate (NHP) stroke model induced by middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo).We studied four rTMS protocols (continuous Theta Burst Stimulation, intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation, 1 Hz rTMS, and 10 Hz rTMS).Animals were ketamine-sedated and the head and coil positions were solidly stabilized.Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) were recorded from target muscles in the non-paretic arm before and after rTMS to the contralesional primary motor cortex was applied, using precise magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided stimulation and stable head and coil positioning.We found that rTMS effects were generally consistent with human studies.However, only theta burst protocols elicited significant changes.Notably, all protocols displayed large variability in responses even under our highly controlled conditions.We conclude that the variability associated with non-invasive rTMS requires further consideration for protocol design, in particular for clinical applications.We propose the testing of rTMS effects through MEP outputs to better quantify effective dosing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".