The Treatment of Cervicogenic Headache with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Exercise Therapy: A Randomized Control Trial Evaluating Functional Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to evaluate functional outcomes of cervical motor control, strength and endurance following active transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with exercise therapy (ET) compared to sham tDCS/+ET in patient with cervicogenic headache (CGH),DesignThis was a pilot sham-controlled, participant and assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial.MethodsThirty-two participants with CGH were randomized to active tDCS/+ET or sham tDCS/+ET. Participants completed 6-weeks of daily ET concurrently combined with 3 sessions per week of tDCS. Assessments included: craniocervical flexion test (mmHg), cervical isometric strength (N), cervical flexor and extensor endurance (seconds), and range of motion (degrees) pre-treatment, post-treatment, 6-weeks and 12-weeks post treatment. Linear mixed effect models evaluated group-time interactions at each follow-up while accounting for exercise program adherence and sex.ResultsThere were significant group-time interactions for activation scores on the craniocervical flexion test from pre-treatment to post-treatment (β = 1.571; 95%CI[0.155, 2.988]; p = 0.030), 6-weeks (β = 1.571; 95%CI[0.155, 2.988]; p = 0.030), and 12-weeks (β = 1.954; 95%CI[0.465, 3.443]; p = 0.011) favoring the active tDCS/+ET group.ConclusionsActive tDCS/+ET demonstrated significant benefits in deep cervical flexor motor control compared to sham tDCS/+ET that remained improved up to 12 weeks post-treatment. This suggests tDCS/+ET may improve of functional outcomes for patients with CGH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".