Feasibility and Tolerability of Controllable Pulse Parameter Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients with Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Case Series Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case series highlights the feasibility and tolerability of using controllable pulse parameter Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (cTMS) in individuals with painful diabetic neuropathy (pDN). cTMS delivers repetitive monophasic pulses, which allows for greater and longer lasting effects compared to traditional repetitive TMS (rTMS). All participants (N = 2) tolerated 10 sessions of cTMS over a two-week period (five days per week) with no discomfort from the stimulation. They reported no pain from the stimulation despite their heightened pain sensitivity as a result of pDN. The cTMS intervention improved their pain and quality of life as determined through questionnaires evaluating pain, depression, anxiety, and other related measures. Notably, cTMS has never been evaluated in diabetic neuropathy, and our data suggest that it is feasible and tolerable in this clinical population. It further proposes a potential therapeutic treatment option for individuals with pDN.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".