MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410781985 · doi:10.7759/cureus.84885

Exploring the Therapeutic Impact of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) in Individuals With Alzheimer's Disease: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

2025· review· en· W4410781985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rochaknaveen Singh Bains, Hamna Talha Peracha, Sai Harini Chandrasekaran, Divyanshi Vijay Kumar, Ananya Prakash, Manjeet Singh, Misbah Kamal Khan, Shree Rath

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTranscranial magnetic stimulationDiseaseNarrative reviewPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceAlzheimer's diseaseStimulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive deterioration and behavioral symptoms, significantly impacting patients and caregivers. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), including agitation, depression, and apathy, are common in AD and complicate its management. Conventional treatments, such as cholinesterase inhibitors and antipsychotics, offer limited benefits and often carry adverse effects. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive neuromodulatory technique, has emerged as a promising alternative by modulating cortical excitability and promoting neuroplasticity. This narrative review aims to evaluate the current literature on the therapeutic effects of rTMS in AD, with a focus on its impact on cognitive function and behavioral symptoms. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with quality assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings indicate that high-frequency rTMS can improve memory, language, and executive functions, while also reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation and depression. Mechanistically, rTMS appears to influence cortical plasticity, neurotransmitter regulation, and neurotrophic factor expression. Despite these encouraging outcomes, heterogeneity in study design, stimulation protocols, and patient populations limit generalizability. Further research through large-scale, standardized, multicentric trials is necessary to confirm its efficacy and define optimal therapeutic parameters. In conclusion, rTMS holds promise as an adjunctive intervention in AD, potentially improving cognitive and behavioral outcomes while offering a favorable safety profile.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→