Efficacy of Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation on Cognition Among Perimenopausal Women: A Quasi-experimental Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive alterations are common in clinical practice during menopausal transition time, with subjective reports of “cerebral fog” impairing daily cognitive performance. Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation (CES) is a neuromodulation approach that delivers pulsed, alternating microcurrent (<1000 μA) to the head via electrodes placed on the earlobes or scalp. It is used to treat anxiety, depression, insomnia, cognition, and headaches. Aim: To explore the efficacy of CES on cognition among perimenopausal women. Materials and Methods: This quasi-experimental pilot study was performed in 16 perimenopausal women, aged between 40-55 years. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethical Committee with the registration number MMDU/ IEC-267. The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI) with the identification number CTRI/2024/04/066346. All participants received active CES for 30 minutes, for 4 days a week for 4 weeks. Pre and post assessments of all participants were performed using Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA) to test cognitive function. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 26.0). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the demographic and baseline characteristics. A paired t-test was used to compare the pretest and post-test results. Results: The MoCA score at baseline was significantly deviated from a normal distribution. For within-group analysis paired t-test was used, MoCA score at baseline was 21.125±2.09 and that after intervention was 22.187±1.64. The result exhibited a significant improvement (p=0.001) when comparing the baseline values to after four weeks of intervention with an effect size of 0.56. Conclusion: CES significantly improved cognitive performance (delayed recall and attention) among perimenopausal women. No study-related adverse events were reported. It would be valuable to further explore or confirm the effects of CES on cognition.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".