Transcranial magnetic stimulation and symptom management in palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive neurostimulation technique currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of depression, migraines with aura and obsessive-compulsive disorder. While there is ample evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of TMS in treating these conditions, there is limited exploration of the application of TMS in the context of palliative care. Methods: In the wake of a preliminary study of ‘accelerated’ repetitive TMS promising symptomatic improvement in depression and anxiety in palliative care patients, we evaluated the use of TMS in addressing a broad spectrum of palliative care-focused symptoms based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in numerous studies. Results: Positive effects were observed in modulating depression, anxiety, sleep, dyspnoea, appetite, peripheral neuropathy, non-neuropathic pain, fatigue and feelings of well-being. Although cachexia and nausea are symptoms classified under the ESAS, our literature search yielded no search results regarding TMS treatment. Conclusion: Larger-scale clinical studies with diverse samples are warranted, and future exploration is necessary to discover additional methodologies for TMS therapy. In this narrative review article, we discuss the current studies to analyse the supporting data, efficacy, safety, mechanisms and the therapeutic potential of TMS use across various conditions within palliative care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".