MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412379013 · doi:10.1186/s12984-025-01692-y

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with acupuncture therapy on brain network functional connectivity in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a single-center randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4412379013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qiu Nie, Linghui Dong, Jingyi Lin, Yinxu Wang, Yulei Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial direct-current stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialMedicineAcupunctureOsteoarthritisNeurologyPhysical therapyBrain stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulationFunctional connectivityNeuroscienceStimulationPsychologyInternal medicineAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) combined with acupuncture therapy on pain, dysfunction and functional connectivity in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and to evaluate its potential therapeutic value. METHOD: In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, patients were recruited from May 2023 to August 2024 from the Departments of Rehabilitation, Orthopedics, and Pain Management at the Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups, including the acupuncture group, the tDCS group, and the combined acupuncture and tDCS group. All treatments were administered five times a week for two weeks. The condition of the patients was evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Lequesne index, and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) before treatment and after two weeks of treatment, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 63 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to three groups. Three patients were excluded for work-related reasons, fear of acupuncture, or time conflicts repectively, which prevented further follow-up. The VAS score, WOMAC score, and Lequesne indexes of all patients were significantly lower after treatment than before treatment (P < 0.01). Compared to the tDCS group and the acupuncture group, the combined group showed greater improvements in the VAS score, WOMAC score, and Lequesne indexes (P < 0.05). The fNIRS results indicated a significant reduction in the mean cerebral functional connectivity strength based on oxyhemoglobin (HbO2) and deoxyhemoglobin (HbR) across all three groups following treatment (P < 0.05). The functional connectivity strengths of the HbO2-based LPFC ~ LPFC, RPFC ~ RPFC, LMC ~ LMC, RMC ~ RMC, LPFC ~ RPFC, LPFC ~ LMC, LPFC ~ RMC, RPFC ~ LMC, RPFC ~ RMC, LMC ~ RMC; HbR-based LPFC ~ LPFC, RPFC ~ RPFC, LMC ~ LMC, RMC ~ RMC, LPFC ~ LMC, LPFC ~ RMC and LMC ~ RMC in the combined group were significantly lower than those in the acupuncture group (P < 0.05).The HbO2-based LPFC ~ LPFC, RPFC ~ RPFC, LMC ~ LMC, and RMC ~ RMC in the combined group were significantly lower than those in the tDCS group (P < 0.01). Compared to those in the acupuncture group, the HbR-based LPFC ~ LPFC and LMC ~ LMC of the patients in the tDCS group were lower (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy of tDCS and acupuncture is better than monotherapy in relieving pain and dysfunction in patients with KOA. The improvement in efficacy may be related to the reduction in brain functional connectivity and may become a new treatment method for treating KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300073819.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207