MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413008615 · doi:10.3390/brainsci15080830

Transcranial Pulse Stimulation in Alzheimer’s: Long-Term Feasibility and a Multifocal Treatment Approach

2025· article· en· W4413008615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Celine Cont-Richter, Nathalie Stute, Anastasia Galli, Christina Schulte, Lars Wojtecki

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentAdverse effectNeuromodulationDeep brain stimulationBeck Depression InventoryVigilance (psychology)StimulationAudiologyMedicineNeuropsychologyTranscranial direct-current stimulationCognitionPsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseInternal medicinePsychiatryNeuroscienceCognitive impairmentAnxietyParkinson's disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Neuromodulation is under investigation as a possibly effective add-on therapy in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). While transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS) has shown positive short-term effects, long-term effects have not yet been fully explored. This study aims to evaluate the long-term feasibility, safety, and potential cognitive benefits of TPS over one year in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, focusing on domains such as memory, speech, orientation, visuo-construction, and depressive symptoms. Methods: We analyzed preliminary data from the first ten out of thirty-five patients enrolled in a prospective TPS study who completed one year of follow-up and were included in a dedicated long-term database. The protocol consisted of six initial TPS sessions over two weeks, followed by monthly booster sessions delivering 6000 pulses each for twelve months. Patients underwent regular neuropsychological assessments using the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS), Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). All adverse events (AEs) were documented and monitored throughout the study. Results: Adverse events occurred in less than 1% of stimulation sessions and mainly included mild focal pain or transient unpleasant sensations, as well as some systemic behavioral or vigilance changes, particularly in patients with underlying medical conditions, with some potentially related to the device’s stimulation as adverse device reactions (ADRs). Cognitive test results showed significant improvement after the initial stimulation cycle (ADAS total improved significantly after the first stimulation cycle (M_pre = 28.44, M_post = 18.56; p = 0.001, d = 0.80, 95% CI (0.36, 1.25)), with stable scores across all domains over one year. Improvements were most notable in memory, speech, and mood. Conclusions: TPS appears to be a generally safe and feasible add-on treatment for AD, although careful patient selection and monitoring are advised. While a considerable number of participants were lost to follow-up for various reasons, adverse events and lack of treatment effect were unlikely primary causes. A multifocal stimulation approach (F-TOP2) is proposed to enhance effects across more cognitive domains.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207