MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417427076 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108243

Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on cognitive function and upper limb motor function in people with chronic stroke: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4417427076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nga Huen Chan, Shamay S. M. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic University
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCognitionProtocol (science)Upper limbTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationFunctional electrical stimulationClinical trialStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive impairment and upper limb impairment are common complications following stroke, but rehabilitation interventions targeting post-stroke cognitive and upper limb motor deficits remain understudied. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, including transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) and transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS), can potentially alleviate cognitive impairment and promote motor recovery. Although tVNS and tSCS may facilitate neuroplasticity following stroke, their effects on cognitive and upper limb motor outcomes have not been sufficiently studied. Therefore, the proposed clinical trial will investigate the effects of tVNS and tSCS on cognitive function and upper limb motor function in people with chronic stroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-arm sham-controlled single-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trial will be performed with people with chronic stroke. All participants (n=90) will be randomly allocated to receive 18 sessions of intervention with different stimulation protocols (tVNS, tSCS and sham stimulation) at a 1:1:1 ratio. All participants will receive upper limb exercises concurrent with the corresponding stimulation protocols for 45 min in each session, three sessions per week, for 6 weeks. The primary outcomes will be the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity. The secondary outcomes will be the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test, Digit Span Test, Trail Making Test, Wolf Motor Function Test, maximum isometric voluntary contraction of the elbow, muscle stiffness of the elbow extensor and flexor, Arm Activity Measure, Oxford Participation and Activity Questionnaire and 12-item Short-Form Survey. All outcomes will be assessed at baseline, after 9 and 18 sessions of the intervention, and 1 month after the cessation of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human Subjects Ethics Committee of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HSEARS20221011002). The results yielded from this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05615610.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.010

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→