Advanced Controlled Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Alleviate Pain in Diabetic Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Secondary measures included response rate of Montreal Cognitive Assessment and changes in the Wechsler Memory Scale, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, and Mini-Mental State Examination at the end of treatment.Results: Of forty-five randomized participants, forty-one were analyzed.Both the high-dose (estimated difference¼4.65,p<0.0001, 95% confidence interval¼3.31-5.99)and low-dose (estimated difference¼2.15,p¼0.0024, 95% confidence interval¼0.81-3.50)treatment groups showed significant improvements in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores.Particularly, the high-dose group demonstrated better cognitive recovery and a higher recovery rate than the low-dose and sham groups, indicating a dosedependent effect for post-stroke cognitive recovery.Moreover, dosedependent improvements were similarly observed in Wechsler Memory Scale, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination, suggesting a consistent dose-dependent effect on memory, intelligence, and mental state.Importantly, no serious adverse events were reported.Conclusion: This study highlights dose-dependent effects in the cognitive recovery post-stroke through intermittent theta burst stimulation targeting the individualized frontoparietal network.Importantly, high-dose intermittent theta burst stimulation was found to be safe and effective for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".