Investigation of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease: treatment results and coil design considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alzheimer’s disease causes a significant burden to both society and individuals. As life expectancy increases worldwide, any potential mechanisms to help mitigate the effects of this disease will be highly desirable. This document presents a body of work relating to Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) as a possible treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The results of a pilot study investigating potential cognitive benefits of rTMS in this population are presented. The pilot study achieved statistically significant results using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), and a long term follow up study showed a generally slower decline than expected for participants receiving treatment. A review and discussion of possible confounding effects of simultaneous depression treatment is presented. Additionally, a simulated model of a standard TMS coil was analyzed to determine occupational safety limits from electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure for an operator while holding the coil to determine if this practice is safe. Using this model, published exposure guidelines are exceeded at 24.6 cm from the coil compared with 70 cm previously accepted. When an operator holds the coil, the electric field in the hand of an operator has an average strength of 9.9 V/m and a peak strength of 88.5 V/m. However, since the only known effects of EMF exposure in this frequency band are acute peripheral nerve stimulation, it is recommended that holding the coil during application should be considered safe. Finally, an investigation of potential improvements in energy efficiency in rTMS systems is presented using a simulated model. Various geometric parameters such as radius, width, thickness, and number of turns are varied and the results are discussed, along with square coil and ferromagnetic core configurations. Coils are compared at fixed output strength by varying stimulator capacitance. Square coil configurations are found to be more efficient than round coils, ferromagnetic core coils can improve efficiency dramatically under certain configurations, and reductions in energy of at least 50% appear achievable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".