High-dose intermittent theta burst stimulation targeting the individualised frontoparietal cognitive network for post-stroke cognitive impairment: protocol for a randomised sham-controlled trial in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive impairment is a common consequence after stroke. Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) has emerged as a promising cognitive therapy. However, traditional iTBS typically employs lower doses and one-size-fits-all stimulation targets, which may not fully capitalise on the potential of this therapy and warrants further evaluation for both efficacy and safety. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-dose iTBS targeting the individualised frontoparietal cognitive network (FCN) identified by precision functional neuroimaging for post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective, double-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. 60 eligible participants with PSCI will be randomly assigned (1:1) to an active iTBS or a sham-controlled group. The active group will receive high-dose iTBS (3600 pulses/day) at 80% resting motor threshold targeting the left individualised FCN, guided by a real-time neuronavigation system. The sham group will follow identical procedures using a sham coil. Both groups will also undergo conventional computerised cognitive training. The intervention will be administered on workdays over a period of 3 weeks, totalling 15 workdays. The primary outcome is the change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores from baseline to immediately post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include long-term change in global cognition, activities of daily living and specific cognitive domains (assessed by a comprehensive neuropsychological battery covering memory, attention, executive function and language), as well as mood. Assessments occur at baseline, post-treatment and 3-month follow-up. Safety outcomes, specifically the number of adverse events related to iTBS, will be monitored and recorded throughout the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the China Rehabilitation Research Center. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05953415.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 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".