Effect of cranial electro-stimulation on cognition in perimenopausal women: randomized control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) on cognition among perimenopausal women.Methods The pretest–post-test randomized controlled trial was conducted between April 2024 and January 2025. Forty-six perimenopausal women, aged 40–55 years, were randomized into two groups: active CES (n = 23) or sham CES (n = 23). Participants were blinded to the study. Both groups received 30-min sessions, 4 days a week for 4 weeks. The participants were assessed at baseline and at the end of 4 weeks of intervention using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale.Results Demographic and baseline characteristics depicted a normal distribution for both groups, except for MoCA (p < 0.05). Within-group analyses of both groups demonstrated significant differences for MoCA (active CES, p = 0.001; sham CES, p = 0.002) with large effect size ≥ 0.5. Between-group analyses of MoCA showed no significant difference with p = 0.212 and small effect size ≤ 0.3. The time and group interaction effect showed significant improvement with p = 0.001.Conclusions CES has the potential to enhance cognitive function in perimenopausal women. Additionally, no adverse events related to the study were reported.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".