Spectrum of tolerability and safety of the use of brain—computer interfaces with biofeedback in cognitive rehabilitation after a stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the tolerability and safety of using high-tech software complexes with biofeedback (BF) via a brain—computer interface (BCI) in the recovery of patients after a stroke, based on an analysis of neuropsychological examination data. Material and methods. The study included 100 stroke patients: 40 patients in the main group, 40 patients in the comparison group, and 20 patients in the control group. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used. In the main group, sessions were conducted using BCI-BF1 based on the P300 potential; in the comparison group, sessions were conducted using BCI-BF2 based on the mu-rhythm of electroencephalography (EEG); control group patients received standard of care. Results. Improvement of the symptoms was reported; no «aggravation/increase» of the existing symptoms or the occurrence of new symptoms was observed, which indicated good tolerance of using BCI-BF1 and BCI-BF2. The results of the assessment on the BDI, HARS, and HDRS scales showed a statistically significant improvement, indicating the regression of existing affective disorders corresponding to the level of minor disorders, namely «subclinical anxiety/depression» (p<0.001). When assessing the BDI and HDRS scales, a statistically significant decrease in the scores for the subscale of affective-cognitive disorders was found in the main group (p=0.002) and in the comparison group (p<0.001). MoCA score showed no decrease from the baseline score of 25 or more: in the main group, there was an increase in the median total score (p=0.014); in the comparison group, there was no change (p=0.683). Conclusion. Treatment with BCI-BF1 based on P300 and BCI-BF2 based on the EEG mu-rhythm was safe in patients in the recovery period of stroke, showed good tolerance, did not cause the occurrence or increase of affective disorders, and did not reduce the MoCA score.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".