Can repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation promote recovery of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness? A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Disorders of consciousness (DoC) are characterized by a broad decline in background excitatory synaptic activity and varying levels of cerebral network disruption. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a neuromodulatory technique, is anticipated to assist the recovery of consciousness. Nonetheless, ongoing debates persist regarding its effectiveness, in light of the inconsistent results of recent research. Objective The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy of rTMS in promoting recovery of consciousness in patients with DoC and to probe its impact on activity of cerebral functional networks. Methods Forty-eight patients with DoC were included in this randomized controlled trial (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100044930). Twenty-four patients in the control group accepted conventional therapy. Another 24 patients in the rTMS group received extra rTMS over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) once per workday during a 4-week intervention phase. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients emerging improvement on level of consciousness (LOC) based on coma recovery scale- revised (CRS-R) at the end of intervention. Furthermore, other behavioral scales such as the clinical global impression-improvement (CGI-I) and resting state-electroencephalography (rs-EEG) microstate were employed as secondary outcomes. Different microstates served as tools to detect the activity of respective corresponding resting state cerebral functional networks. Results In comparison to the control group, the rTMS group exhibited a higher proportion of patients emerging improvement on LOC at post-intervention, with a risk ratio of 3.06 (95 % CI 1.54 to 6.09, P = 0.001). The distribution of patients with each grade of CGI-I across the groups also implied a trend that favored the rTMS group (common odds ratio:0.20, 95 % CI 0.065 to 0.63, P = 0.006). With respect to microstate E, the rTMS group had a significantly reduced global explained variance (GEV) was observed in the rTMS group (Z = -2.61, P bonf = 0.027). Conclusion High-frequency rTMS over the DLPFC could promote recovery of consciousness in patients with DoC. It might get involved in modulating the balance among cerebral functional networks and facilitating consciousness recovery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".