Investigate the therapeutic differences between temporal interference stimulation and transcranial alternating current stimulation on post-stroke cognitive dysfunction: a protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) and temporal interference stimulation (TIS) as electrical neuromodulation therapy have shown promising applications in cognitive impairments. Meanwhile, the TIS technique is more novel, with deep and non-invasive brain stimulation. At present, the therapeutic or neuromodulation differences between TIS and tACS on post-stroke cognitive dysfunction(PSCI) are still unclear. Here, we aim to compare and analyze the neuromodulation model and clinical performances of TIS and tACS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The prospective, single-blind and randomized controlled trial will be conducted over a 2-week period. Through precise statistical sample size calculation,thirty-six eligible participants with mild PSCI will be recruited and randomly allocated to either the tACS or the TIS group. Participants in the TIS group will receive stimulation at frequencies of 2005 Hz and 2010 Hz targeting the hippocampal region. Those in the tACS group will undergo 5 Hz stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). The intervention will last for 2 weeks, with each participant receiving 25-min stimulation sessions once a day, five times per week. The primary outcome measure will be the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), while secondary outcomes will include performance on the N-back task, digital span test (DST), shape trails test (STT) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). All clinical assessments will be collected at two time points: pre-intervention (T1) and post-intervention (T2). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial protocol is registered with www.chictr.org.cn under protocol registration number ChiCTR2400081207. Registered on February 26, 2024.
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 | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".