MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117257940 · doi:10.1080/10749357.2025.2605295

Intermittent theta-burst stimulation for post-stroke cognitive impairment: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W7117257940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yueying Wang, Huiyue Feng, Jingang Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Stroke Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCognitionStimulationBrain stimulationRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) significantly affects patients' quality of life. Although standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown promising efficacy, the effectiveness of the newer, more time-efficient intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) remains to be validated. METHODS: Two groups of randomly assigned patients with PSCI received either four weeks of two 600-pulse iTBS treatment sessions with a 50-minute interval between sessions or sham stimulation. Cognitive function and activities of daily living were assessed before and after treatment using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Modified Barthel Index (MBI). RESULTS: < 0.05for all). Only one patient experienced a headache during treatment, and no serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Two blocks of iTBS therapy with 600 pulses each at 50-minute intervals demonstrated favorable therapeutic effects in patients with PSCI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Stroke RehabilitationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207