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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".