MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408245549 · doi:10.1155/prm/1783171

Home‐Based, Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improves the Overall Pain Experience of Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis

2025· article· en· W4408245549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juyoung Park, C. Kent Kwoh, Mindy J. Fain, Lindsey Park, Hyochol Ahn

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyMedicinePain catastrophizingTranscranial direct-current stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialKnee painQuantitative sensory testingChronic painPsychologyStimulationInternal medicineSensory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a multidimensional phenomenon requiring thorough assessment and appropriate treatment. We assessed the impact of home‐based, remotely supervised transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the overall pain experience of older adults with knee OA by simultaneously examining its effects on multiple pain domains—pain intensity, pain interference, and pain catastrophizing—using multigroup latent transition analysis (LTA). Methods: This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial involved 120 participants with knee OA pain, randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 15 daily sessions of 2‐mA tDCS or sham tDCS (20 min per session) over three weeks, with real‐time remote supervision. Pain intensity was measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the pain subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index. Pain interference was measured using the WOMAC functional scale. Pain catastrophizing was assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). All the measures were assessed at baseline and at the end of each week (weeks 1, 2, and 3), after the participants had completed five tDCS sessions per week. Multigroup LTA enabled the simultaneous measurement of multiple pain domains and analysis of their changes as a function of intervention exposure by modeling the transition probabilities of latent classes and comparing these changes between the groups. Results: Based on the NRS, WOMAC, and PCS scores, three latent categories were identified: “high pain (all scores high),” “moderate pain (all scores moderate),” and “low pain (all scores low).” Active group participants with “moderate pain” at baseline had a 24.2% probability of transitioning to “low pain” after Week 1, whereas sham group participants remained stagnant during this interval. Notably, 37.6% of active group participants with “high pain” at Week 1 transitioned to “moderate pain,” while 35.8% of those with “moderate pain” at Week 1 transitioned to “low pain” by Week 2 (after an additional five sessions). Nevertheless, no noticeable changes were observed in the sham group during this period. No pronounced intervention effects were noted by Week 3. Conclusions: Simultaneously modeling pain‐related measures enriches our understanding of the efficacy of tDCS in improving the overall pain experience among older adults with knee OA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04016272

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207