Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Showing posts with label rTMS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rTMS. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

Neuronavigated rTMS after stroke: RCTs suggest modest motor gains

 Or more accurately called a failure! Modest is nowhere near 100% recovery!

Yet, your competent? doctor has known all about rTMS for years and can accurately describe its' workings and failings, right?

rTMS (76 posts to January 2013)

Neuronavigated rTMS after stroke: RCTs suggest modest motor gains

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a subcategory of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), used to modulate brain plasticity and improve post-stroke recovery. Neuronavigation is used to improve the accuracy of stimulation with the aim of achieving a superior clinical outcome than with conventional targeting. The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of navigated rTMS in subacute and chronic stroke patients in comparison to sham stimulation. We conducted a systematic-review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL. Trials employing neuronavigated rTMS were included of these five types; high and low frequency rTMS, intermittent and continuous theta-burst stimulation (TBS) and Hebbian-type stimulation. 13 RCTs were included after a screening of 1900 studies. 606 patients receiving either active (n = 360) or sham stimulation (n = 246) were assessed. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) favored rTMS over sham SMD = 0.4 (95 %CI: 0.11-0.69), with moderate heterogeneity I2 = 55 %. Among stimulation modalities, continuous TBS showed the largest pooled effect. rTMS was also associated with significant improvements(NOT RECOVERY!) in disability-related outcomes, SMD = 0.61 (95 % CI 0.14-1.08). Navigated rTMS is associated with modest but significant improvements in motor and disability outcomes in subacute and chronic stroke. Large comparative trials are required to clarify the potential added value over conventional targeting approaches.

REFERENCES

  1. Navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for post-stroke recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    Beris E, Tsitsopoulos PP, Katsanos AH, Bellos S, Simos YV, Lakkas L, Markopoulos GS, Konitsiotis S.

    J Clin Neurosci. 2026 Jul 27; 153 112215 [Epub ahead of print]

Monday, May 25, 2026

Combination of flupentixol and melitracen tablets and rTMS improves post-stroke depression through neurovegetative symptoms changes: a retrospective analysis

 Preventing depression by having EXACT 100% RECOVERY PROTOCOLS makes much more sense that after the fact treatment! And your stroke medical 'professionals' are too stupid to understand that!

Combination of flupentixol and melitracen tablets and rTMS improves post-stroke depression through neurovegetative symptoms changes: a retrospective analysis


  • 1. Department of Neurology, The Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China

  • 2. First Clinical College of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China

Abstract

Background:

Post-stroke depression (PSD) is one of the most common neuropsychiatric complications among stroke survivors, with a substantial impact on functional recovery and quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the effect of flupentixol and melitracen tablets combined with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on patients with post-stroke depression (PSD) and analyze the differences in the key factors of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD17) scores.

Methods: 

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 121 patients with PSD, including 57 patients who used the flupentixol and melitracen tablets alone and 64 patients who additionally received rTMS. General information was assessed. Follow-up indices after treatment included P300, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), HAMD17, and the Barthel Index (BI) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire. Observable mood (OM), cognitive symptoms (CS) and neurovegetative symptoms (NS), the three dimensions of HAMD17 was also analyzed. The concentrations of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), norepinephrine (NE), neuropeptide Y (NPY) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in the serum were measured during all time points.

Results: 

There was significant difference in the amplitude and latency of P300 and NS after 2 weeks and 4 weeks treatment between the groups, while there was significant difference in the concentrations of 5-HT, NE, NPY, BDNF and the scores of NIHSS, HAMD17, BI, PSQI after 4 weeks treatment. The treatment outcomes at 4 weeks demonstrated statistically significant differences compared to those observed at 2 weeks both at control group and combination group. The results also indicated that the treatment in the combined group demonstrated superiority over that in the control group with respect to both onset time and therapeutic efficacy.

Conclusion: 

Combination of flupentixol and melitracen tablets and rTMS could significantly improve the depressive symptoms of patients with PSD, NS was the symptom dimension most closely related to the therapeutic response. More importantly, the P300 parameter might provide an early and objective indicator of the neurophysiological changes associated with the treatment.

Monday, April 27, 2026

Comparative efficacy of motor imagery augmented with central non-invasive brain stimulation versus peripheral electrical stimulation for upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

 So, our fuckingly incompetent stroke medical 'professionals' STILL HAVEN'T WRITTEN ANY PROTOCOLS TO GET SURVIVORS RECOVERED! WOW! This was totally useless research then! Hope you blithering idiots like not recovering when you become the 1 in 4 per WHO that has a stroke!

And you've known of motor imagery for HOW LONG AND DONE NOTHING?


Comparative efficacy of motor imagery augmented with central non-invasive brain stimulation versus peripheral electrical stimulation for upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

    We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

    Abstract

    Background

    Upper limb dysfunction is a common and debilitating consequence of stroke, severely affecting patients’ activities of daily living and quality of life. Motor imagery (MI) has emerged as a promising rehabilitation technique, and its combination with various forms of non-invasive stimulation, both central (e.g., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, rTMS; transcranial direct current stimulation, tDCS) and peripheral (e.g., functional electrical stimulation, FES), has been increasingly investigated. While previous meta-analyses have confirmed the general benefit of combined interventions, the relative efficacy of different MI-based combination strategies remains unclear. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to directly and indirectly compare the effectiveness of MI augmented with different non-invasive central or peripheral stimulation modalities for upper extremity recovery post-stroke.

    Methods

    We registered the study on PROSPERO (CRD420251131264) and followed the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from inception until August 4, 2025. The included RCTs involved adult stroke patients with upper limb dysfunction receiving MI combined with any non-invasive stimulation. The primary outcome was the change in upper limb motor function measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA or FMA-UE). A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity.

    Results

    Seventeen RCTs involving 846 participants were included in the systematic review, with 13 studies forming the network for meta-analysis, comparing 9 intervention strategies. Network meta-analysis for the FMA outcome showed that MI combined with low-frequency rTMS (MI-LF-rTMS) showed a statistically significant difference compared to conventional rehabilitation alone (Standardized Mean Difference, SMD = 1.755, 95% CI 0.631 to 2.879, p = 0.002). No other intervention, including MI-tDCS, MI-FES, or any single therapy, showed a statistically significant difference compared to conventional rehabilitation. MI-LF-rTMS also showed a statistically significant difference in upper limb functional activity (Action Research Arm Test). Subgroup analyses indicated that the statistically significant difference for MI-LF-rTMS was also observed across intervention durations ≤ 4 weeks, disease stages ≤ 3 months post-stroke, and in protocols not using brain-computer interface technology. Meta-regression identified that the use of a brain-computer interface, publication year, and patient mean age were significant sources of heterogeneity.

    Conclusion

    Among the intervention strategies evaluated in this network meta-analysis, motor imagery combined with low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (MI-LF-rTMS) showed a statistically significant difference compared to conventional rehabilitation. This regimen integrates central neuromodulation with cognitive training and may be a clinically feasible option, particularly for patients in the early phase after stroke. Future research should focus on parameter optimization, mechanistic exploration, and validation in larger, more diverse populations.

    Sunday, March 1, 2026

    Clinical study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the rehabilitation of post-stroke depression: A Quantitative Insomnia Sleep Inventory monitoring evaluation

    You're that stupid that preventing depression by having 100% recovery protocols is not even in your thought process? My god, you're all fired for incompetency!

     Clinical study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the rehabilitation of post-stroke depression: A Quantitative Insomnia Sleep Inventory monitoring evaluation

     Ai-Ming Gu, 
    Chao Liu, 
    Jian-Hong Chen, 
    Ru-Ya Guo, 
    Chao Liang, 
    Xing-Shi Chen 
    Ai-Ming Gu, Department of Neurology, Jiaxing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiaxing 314000, Zhejiang Province, 
    China Chao Liu, Department of Psychiatry, The First Hospital of Jiaxing, Jiaxing 314000, Zhejiang Province, China 
    Jian-Hong Chen, Department of Medical, Jinhua City Durg Rehabilitation Isolation Center, Jinhua 321000, Zhejiang Province, China 
    Ru-Ya Guo, Department of Endocrinology, The First Hospital of Jiaxing, Jiaxing 314000, Zhejiang Province, China 
    Chao Liang, Department of General Practice, The First Hospital of Jiaxing, Jiaxing 314000, Zhejiang Province, China 
    Xing-Shi Chen, Department of Electrophysiology, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai 200030, China ORCID number: Ai-Ming Gu (0009-0006-5409-9052); Chao Liu (0009-0002-3804-7245); Jian-Hong Chen (0009-0004-2333-0632); Ru-Ya Guo (0009-0002-8282-5315); Chao Liang (0009-0006-0072-6153); Xing-Shi Chen (0009-0005-0237-6196). Co-first authors: Ai-Ming Gu and Chao Liu. Co-corresponding authors: Jian-Hong Chen and Ru-Ya Guo. Author contributions: Gu AM and Chen JH designed the study; Gu AM, Guo RY, and Chen XS conducted the research; Chen JH and Chen XS provided experimental instruments; Liu C, Chen JH, and Liang C analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript; Gu AM and Liu C contributed equally to this manuscript and are co-first authors; Chen JH and Guo RY contributed equally to this manuscript and are co-corresponding authors. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. 
    Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81471357; and the Project of Jinhua Municipal Bureau of Science and Technology, No. 2024-07 and No. 2024-08. Institutional review board statement: This study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Shanghai Mental Health Center (Approval No. 2019009). Informed consent statement: All participants in the study signed the informed consent form before commencement of the study. Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article. STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement-checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement-checklist of items. Data sharing statement: No additional data are available. Corresponding author: Jian-Hong Chen, Department of Medical, Jinhua City Durg Rehabilitation Isolation Center, No. 1 Fangjingtou Community, Fangjingtou Village, Wucheng District, Jinhua 321000, Zhejiang Province, China. 18713190@qq.com Received: November 7, 2025 Revised: December 8, 2025 Accepted: February 5, 2026 Published online: March 19, 2026 Processing time: 111 Days and 23 Hours 

     Abstract 



    BACKGROUND Jiaxing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine introduced transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) technology in 2019. In practical application, it was found that different types of equipment and technical parameters could lead to differences in therapeutic effects. Therefore, our hospital selected a Danish-made TMS device, which ranked second in the Chinese market, and conducted tests on patients with post-stroke depression (PSD) from March 2019 to September 2023. Before the test, a plan was formulated based on the quality status before and after the inspection. Two evaluators independently controlled the quality of the plan. The repetitive TMS (rTMS) and Quantitative Insomnia Sleep Inventory (QUISI) data were separately stored and verified independently by the two evaluators. AIM To investigate the effect of rTMS and QUISI on the sleep and rehabilitation of patients with PSD. 

    METHODS 

    From March 2019 to December 2023, subjects who were admitted to the Department of Rehabilitation of the Jiaxing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai Mental Health Center, and National Medical Centre for Psychiatric Disorders were enrolled. A total of 108 patients with PSD were enrolled: 54 patients in the observation group and 54 in the control group. Sixty-eight normal volunteers were also included. Both the observation group and the control group received venlafaxine 150 mg/day sustained-release therapy. The observation group was given venlafaxine combined with rTMS. The control group was treated with venlafaxine combined with rTMS pseudo stimulation. The two groups underwent 42 treatment sessions over 14 weeks. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 scores were compared between the two groups before and after treatment, and the changes in QUISI were compared with healthy volunteers. 

    RESULTS 

    The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 scores in the two groups were significantly reduced after treatment, and the improvement was more significant in the observation group (P < 0.05). Before treatment, the sleep latency in the two groups of patients by QUISI was delayed compared to normal volunteers, and the sleep efficiency and maintenance rate were lower than those in normal volunteers, with statistical significance (P < 0.05-0.01). After 14 weeks of treatment, the sleep latency period in the observation group QUISI shifted forward, indicating an increase in sleep efficiency and maintenance rate. The differences between the observation group and the control group were statistically significant (P < 0.01). After a 3-month rehabilitation evaluation, the total effective rate of patients in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). 

    CONCLUSION 

    rTMS treatment has a positive effect on PSD in clinical practice. QUISI monitoring can be used for rehabilitation assessment.

    Gu AM, Liu C, Chen JH, Guo RY, Liang C, Chen XS. Clinical study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the rehabilitation of post-stroke depression: A Quantitative Insomnia Sleep Inventory monitoring evaluation. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(3): 116094 [DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v16.i3.116094]

    Tuesday, July 1, 2025

    Brain Stimulation Reverses Synaptic Damage in Alzheimer’s

     Does your competent? doctor have enough functioning neurons to get human testing going and see if this could restore synapses damaged from your stroke?

    Brain Stimulation Reverses Synaptic Damage in Alzheimer’s

    Summary: New research shows that low-intensity repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can restore key synaptic structures in mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease. The study found that axonal boutons—sites where neurons form connections—had reduced turnover in Alzheimer’s mice, indicating impaired brain plasticity.

    After a single rTMS session, the turnover of one bouton type significantly increased, matching levels seen in healthy mice. These changes suggest that rTMS can partially reverse synaptic deficits, potentially improving brain connectivity.

    Key Facts:

    • Synaptic Turnover Boost: rTMS increased turnover of terminaux boutons by up to 213% in AD mice.
    • Selective Response: Only terminaux boutons, not en passant boutons, responded to rTMS.
    • Therapeutic Potential: rTMS restored impaired synaptic plasticity to near-healthy levels.

    Source: SPIE

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a debilitating neurodegenerative condition that affects a significant proportion of older people worldwide.

    Synapses are points of communication between neural cells that are malleable to change based on our experiences. By adding, removing, strengthening, or weakening synaptic contacts, our brain encodes new events or forgets previous ones.

    This shows a brain.
    Axonal boutons are specialized endings of an axon, which is the long slender part of a neuron that connects neurons by transmitting neural signals. Credit: Neuroscience News

    In AD, synaptic plasticity, the brain’s ability to regulate the strength of synaptic connections between neurons, is significantly disrupted. This worsens over time, reducing cognitive and memory functions leading to reduced quality of life. To date, there is no effective cure for AD, and only limited treatments for managing the symptoms.

    Studies have shown that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that uses electromagnetic pulses to target specific brain regions, has therapeutic potential to manage dementia and related diseases.

    From previous studies, we know that rTMS can promote synaptic plasticity in healthy nervous systems. Moreover, it is already used to treat certain neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric conditions. However, individual responses to rTMS for AD management are variable, and the underlying mechanisms are not clearly understood.

    Recently, researchers from the University of Queensland (Australia) and the Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre at the University of Tasmania investigated the effects of rTMS on synapses in the brain cortex of mice with Alzheimer’s type dementia.

    Their report is published in Neurophotonics. “Since synaptic dysfunction is a key mechanism in AD, in this study, we quantified the changes in synaptic axonal boutons in AD mouse model in response to rTMS, comparing them to those in healthy mice,” explains corresponding author Dr. Barbora Fulopova, a professor at University of Queensland.

    Axonal boutons are specialized endings of an axon, which is the long slender part of a neuron that connects neurons by transmitting neural signals. These are sites where synapses form, allowing neurons to communicate.

    Therefore, any change in the number or function of these boutons can have profound effects on brain connectivity. In this study, the researchers observed structural changes of two types of excitatory boutonsnamely “terminaux boutons” (TBs) (short protrusions from the axon shaft typically connecting neurons in a local area) and “en passant boutons” (EPBs) (small bead-like structures along axons typically connecting distal regions). They used two-photon imaging to visualize individual axons and synapses in the brain of a live animal.

    The study was conducted on the APP/PS1 xThy-1GFP-M strain of mice, which is a cross between the APP/PS1 strain (genetically modified to show AD-like symptoms seen in humans) and the Thy1-GFP-M strain, which expresses a fluorescent protein in certain neurons. This combination causes axons to glow during imaging, enabling precise tracking of synaptic bouton changes over time.

    The team monitored the dynamics of the axonal boutons in these mice at 48-hour intervals for eight days, both before and after a single rTMS session. They then compared these findings to healthy wild-type (WT) mice.

    They found that both TBs and EPBs in the AD mouse model had comparable density to those in healthy WT mice. However, the turnover of both bouton types was significantly lower in the AD mouse model before rTMS, likely due to the amyloid plaque buildup, a key marker of dementia, and potentially causing diseases like AD.

    After a single session of low-intensity rTMS, the turnover of TBs in both strains increased significantly, while there was no change in the EPB turnover. Notably, the largest changes were observed two days after stimulation with an 88 percent increase in TB turnover for the WT strain and a 213 percent increase in the APP-GFP strain. However, this increase returned to pre-stimulation levels by the eighth day.

    Furthermore, in the AD mouse model, this increased turnover was comparable to the turnover levels in the WT mice seen before stimulation. This indicates that low-intensity rTMS can potentially restore the synaptic plasticity of TBs to those seen in healthy mice.

    Moreover, the fact that only TBs, and not EPBs, responded to rTMS points to the possibility that the mechanisms of rTMS might be cell-type specific.

    “This is the first study to provide evidence of pre-synaptic boutons responding to rTMS in a healthy nervous system as well as a nervous system marked by the presence of dementia,” remarks Fulopova.

    “Given the established link between synaptic dysfunction and cognitive decline in dementia and the use of rTMS for the treatment of other neurodegenerative conditions, our findings highlight its potential as a powerful addition to currently used AD management strategies.”

    This study marks a significant step forward in understanding AD. While further research is required, the findings of this study pave the way for targeted rTMS treatments that could improve the quality of life of patients with Alzheimer’s disease.

    About this brain stimulation and Alzheimer’s disease research news

    Author: Daneet Steffens
    Source: SPIE
    Contact: Daneet Steffens – SPIE
    Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News

    Original Research: Open access.
    Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation increases synaptic plasticity of cortical axons in the APP/PS1 amyloidosis mouse model” by Barbora Fulopova et al. Neurophotonics

    Friday, March 28, 2025

    Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Review

     

    I was denied entry into some rTMS research because my damage to the motor cortex was so bad that nothing in rTMS would have worked. So cherry picking research subjects to make the research look good.  I wouldn't trust the results here to give a valid response since I bet more disabled persons were not selected. 

    Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Review

    Ayesha JuhiRintu K. GayenShreya SharmaPritam K. ChoudharyHimel Mondal

    Published: February 23, 2025

    DOI: 10.7759/cureus.79509

    Peer-Reviewed

    Cite this article as: Juhi A, Gayen R K, Sharma S, et al. (February 23, 2025) Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Bibliometric Review. Cureus 17(2): e79509. doi:10.7759/cureus.79509

    Stroke is a major cause of disability globally, with rehabilitation playing a crucial role in restoring lost functions. Despite advancements, many stroke survivors face persistent deficits, prompting the need for innovative approaches such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). This non-invasive technique promotes neural plasticity and recovery by modulating cortical excitability, garnering significant research interest. This bibliometric analysis of rTMS research in stroke rehabilitation was conducted to find publication trends and influential studies. Data were collected from the Web of Science (WOS) with search strings as follows: TI = ((repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) OR rTMS) AND TI = ((stroke) OR stroke rehabilitation). The studies till the 31st of December 2024 were included. No language or other filters were applied. A total of 556 studies were identified. While analyzing the data, there may be a higher or lower count of the total number of studies due to the overlap of categories. For example, a study may have authors from different countries, making the total number of publications according to countries higher than 556. There was a growing interest in rTMS in the context of stroke rehabilitation, with a substantial increase in publications in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Among the studies, the majority of the studies were research articles (62.42%), followed by meeting abstracts (18.41%). The studies (n = 983) were in the fields of clinical neurology (27.47%) and neuroscience (27.37%), followed by rehabilitation (8.55%). When studies (n = 645) were categorized according to countries, The People's Republic of China had the majority of the studies (29.92%), followed by South Korea (11.01%), the USA (10.85%), and Japan (9.61%). Elsevier (15.83%) leads in publishing the articles, followed by Frontiers Media (13.49%). The top citation was for the article titled "Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Contralesional Primary Motor Cortex Improves Hand Function After Stroke" with 521 citations and was published in the journal Stroke. These findings provide valuable insights into research trends, influential studies, and global collaboration, emphasizing the potential of rTMS in advancing stroke recovery. More studies are needed from diverse geographical regions with possible international collaboration.

    Introduction & Background

    Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting millions of individuals annually and imposing a significant socioeconomic burden on healthcare systems. Currently, 110 million people worldwide suffer from stroke, with over 60% of those individuals being under 70 years of age [1]. Rehabilitation is a cornerstone of stroke recovery, aiming to restore motor, cognitive, and sensory functions to improve the patient's quality of life [2]. Despite advancements in conventional rehabilitation methods, many stroke survivors experience persistent deficits, highlighting the need for innovative approaches [3].

    Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive neuromodulation technique, has emerged as a promising adjunct in stroke rehabilitation [4]. By delivering magnetic pulses to targeted brain regions, rTMS can modulate cortical excitability and promote neural plasticity, facilitating recovery of motor and cognitive functions [5]. Over the past two decades, a growing body of research has investigated the therapeutic potential of rTMS in post-stroke rehabilitation, examining its efficacy, optimal protocols, and underlying mechanisms. The growing interest in rTMS for stroke rehabilitation has resulted in a wealth of published literature, including clinical trials, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, all exploring its efficacy, mechanisms, and optimal protocols [6].

    A bibliometric analysis serves as a powerful tool to evaluate the scientific landscape, identify research trends, and highlight influential studies, authors, and institutions [7]. By systematically analyzing the publication patterns and citation dynamics, such a review can provide a broader perspective on the evolution of rTMS research in stroke rehabilitation. The major limitation of bibliometric analysis is that it focuses on quantitative aspects such as publication counts, citations, and impact factors, which may not fully capture research quality, clinical relevance, or actual scientific contributions. Additionally, it is influenced by database coverage. For example, if a journal is not indexed in Medline, PubMed Central, or Bookshelf and reviewers use only PubMed search in their analysis, they may miss the articles published in that journal.

    A previous study by Li et al. reported trends up to 2023 [6], using a search across all fields and including transcranial magnetic stimulation (searched as “TMS”). In the present study, we focused specifically on rTMS in stroke rehabilitation up to 2024, limiting the search to titles. This approach was chosen to ensure that the studies or articles addressing the applicability of rTMS in stroke rehabilitation included these key terms in their titles. If all fields are chosen, then any article having the terms even in the discussion of any research paper may appear in the search result, which is not in the scope of this bibliometric analysis.

    More at link.

    Monday, March 10, 2025

    Wednesday, November 13, 2024

    Personalized Noninvasive Neuromodulation Slows AD Progression

     Ask your competent? doctor if this should be done as a preventative for your risk of dementia post stroke. No answer, you don't have a functioning stroke doctor! RUN AWAY!

    1. A documented 33% dementia chance post-stroke from an Australian study?   May 2012.

    2. Then this study came out and seems to have a range from 17-66%. December 2013.`    

    3. A 20% chance in this research.   July 2013.

    4. Dementia Risk Doubled in Patients Following Stroke September 2018 

    The latest here:

    Personalized Noninvasive Neuromodulation Slows AD Progression

    New research supports the therapeutic potential of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

    In a 52-week phase 2 trial, personalized rTMS applied over the precuneus, a core component of the default mode network (DMN), slowed the progression of cognitive and functional decline in patients with mild to moderate AD.

    As reported previously by Medscape Medical News, the 52-week results align with the results seen at 24 weeks.

    “These latest results provide new additional evidence...supporting the potential for neuromodulation of the DMN to slow the impairment of cognitive functions, preserve activities of daily living, and reduce behavioral disturbances in Alzheimer’s patients, with no significant side effects,” Giacomo Koch, MD, PhD, professor of physiology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy, and director of the Brain Stimulation Laboratory, Santa Lucia Foundation, said in a statement.

    The results were presented at the 17th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) Conference.

    Personalized Neuromodulation

    The DMN is responsible for memory and shows preferential accumulation of amyloid beta and tau vs other brain regions. The precuneus is the key hub in the DMN, and patients with AD show alterations of this key functional area, Koch explained.

    The phase 2 trial enrolled 48 patients (mean age, 72 years; 56% women) with mild to moderate AD on acetylcholinesterase inhibitor therapy for at least 6 months.

    They received an initial 2-week intensive course of rTMS or sham rTMS applied over the precuneus five times per week for 2 weeks (10 sessions, 1600 pulses, 20 Hz), followed by a 50-week maintenance phase, in which the same stimulation was applied once weekly.

    Personalization of the rTMS treatment was established using single-pulse TMS concurrently in combination with electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) based on the recording, processing, and proprietary analysis of transcranial evoked potentials and patient MRI data.

    A total of 32 patients (68%) completed the study.

    The study showed that personalized rTMS of the precuneus had a significant effect on the primary outcome of change from baseline to week 52 of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB).

    The estimated mean change in CDR-SB after 52 weeks was 1.36 in the rTMS group vs 2.45 in the sham rTMS group (P = .038) — representing a 44% slowing of AD’s progression over 12 months.

    There were also statistically significant effects of rTMS on key secondary outcome measures of the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (P = .02), AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale (P < .001), Mini Mental State Examination (P = .05), and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (P = .048) scores.

    The study also showed an increase in functional connectivity within the DMN in the active rTMS group but not in the sham group.

    rTMS was safe and well tolerated with only a few minor adverse events reported, including mild headache, skin or scalp discomfort, and neck pain.

    Limitations of the study included the small sample size, single-center design, and lack of cerebrospinal fluid or blood-based biomarkers that would provide evidence for the biological effects of rTMS.

    Koch said personalized noninvasive brain stimulation of the DMN “could represent a novel therapeutic approach in AD patients.”

    He noted that “personalization is a key factor,” and his group is working on algorithms that may “automatize the selection of individual parameters.”

    The technology has received breakthrough device designation by the US Food and Drug Administration. The researchers plan to launch a pivotal randomized controlled clinical trial in 2025.

    ‘Exciting Frontier’

    Reached for comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist and researcher based in Miami, noted that the “personalized nature of the rTMS intervention in this Alzheimer’s study is a particularly exciting aspect.”

    “By using TMS-EEG to optimize the stimulation parameters for each individual patient, the researchers were able to potentially maximize the benefits of this noninvasive neuromodulation technique,” said Lakhan, who wasn’t involved in the research.

    “This approach aligns well with the growing recognition that Alzheimer’s disease is not a single, monolithic condition, but rather an amalgam of different, smaller diseases based on genetics, protein signatures, structural and functional neuroanatomy, behavioral profiles, and other phenomic factors,” Lakhan told Medscape Medical News.

    He said the field is increasingly understanding that so-called “common” diseases like AD are highly heterogeneous, with diverse underlying mechanisms driving the observed clinical presentation.

    “This heterogeneity necessitates a move away from one-size-fits-all treatments towards more personalized, precision-based interventions. If these findings continue to demonstrate the promise of personalized, biomarker-guided neuromodulation, it could pave the way for the development of digital therapeutics that can achieve similar levels of individualization,” Lakhan predicted.

    “The ability to precisely modulate brain networks based on each patient’s unique neurophysiology represents an exciting frontier in the search for more effective, patient-centered approaches to managing these complex neurodegenerative disorders,” he added.

    Funding for the study was provided in part by the BrightFocus Foundation, the Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, and Sinaptica Therapeutics. Koch is a scientific co-founder and holds stocks of Sinaptica Therapeutics; received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Epitech, Roche, and Novo Nordisk; and holds a patent on the use of rotigotine in combination with cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with AD and another on systems and methods for providing personalized targeted noninvasive stimulation to a brain network. Lakhan had no relevant disclosures.

    Monday, November 4, 2024

    Alzheimer's Progression May Be Slowed by Targeted Magnetic Pulses, Study Suggests

     With your elevated chances of dementia post stroke, your competent? doctor is responsible for preventing that! Have they taken on that responsibility to check if this would help prevent dementia post stroke? Or are they DOING NOTHING?

    With your chances of getting dementia post stroke, you need prevention solutions. YOUR DOCTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING THIS!

    1. A documented 33% dementia chance post-stroke from an Australian study?   May 2012.

    2. Then this study came out and seems to have a range from 17-66%. December 2013.`    

    3. A 20% chance in this research.   July 2013.

    4. Dementia Risk Doubled in Patients Following Stroke September 2018 

    The latest here:

    Alzheimer's Progression May Be Slowed by Targeted Magnetic Pulses, Study Suggests

    In phase II trial, transcranial stimulation led to significant differences versus placebo

    Investigational transcranial magnetic stimulation that targeted a brain network involved in memory slowed progression in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, data from a small phase II study suggested.

    At 1 year, noninvasive personalized stimulation of the default mode network (DMN) led to an estimated mean change of 1.3 points on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), compared with 2.4 points for sham treatment (P=0.038), reported Giacomo Koch, MD, PhD, of the University of Ferrara in Italy at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer's Disease annual meeting in Madrid.

    CDR-SB scores -- the primary outcome in this single-center study -- range from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

    Repetitive stimulation also led to significantly better scores on a key secondary measure of activities of daily living compared with sham (P<0.001) at 1 year.

    The findings confirm the potential of transcranial magnetic stimulation to enhance neuroplasticity, gamma activity, and network connectivity in the DMN, Koch said. "Personalized noninvasive brain stimulation of the DMN could represent a novel therapeutic approach in Alzheimer's disease patients," he stated.

    The results add to prior 6-month evidence supporting neuromodulation to slow cognitive impairment and preserve activities of daily living, he added.

    "I'm encouraged by consistency of the efficacy signals across endpoints in this 1-year monocentric placebo-controlled study," noted Jeffrey Cummings, MD, ScD, of University of Nevada in Las Vegas. "Given its lack of serious side effects, this precision medicine neuromodulation approach represents a promising new direction for treatment research in the field of Alzheimer's."

    The DMN is responsible for memory and has preferential accumulation of amyloid-beta and tau versus other regions, Koch noted. The precuneus is a key DMN hub.

    "We are targeting synaptic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease," Koch said. "The synaptic dysfunction is the consequence of complex interactions between amyloid deposition, tau, and neuroinflammation that occurs during several years. And at some point, it progressively affects the communication with neurons and disrupts synaptic activity at different levels."

    The study randomized 48 people with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease to treatment or sham for 52 weeks. It included 31 patients from the previous 6-month randomized trial who extended therapy to 12 months; 17 new participants also received the identical protocol for 12 months. A number of people were lost to follow-up during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a total of 32 participants ultimately completed the 12-month study.

    Personalization was established using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation concurrently with electroencephalography (EEG) and MRI data to define the best spot to engage connectivity. The therapy consisted of 20 Hz pulses and was delivered daily for 10 sessions during an induction phase, then in weekly 20-minute sessions for the next 50 weeks.

    EEGs showed that transcranial magnetic stimulation increased functional connectivity within the DMN, which correlated with clinical outcomes, Koch said. The procedure was safe and well tolerated, he noted; adverse events included headache, scalp or skin discomfort, and neck pain or stiffness.

    Study limitations include a small sample size and mixed enrollment methods. In an upcoming trial, treatment will be calibrated quarterly using transcranial magnetic stimulation and EEG concurrently in combination with MRI-guided navigation.

    Disclosures

    Koch is a co-founder of Sinaptica Therapeutics, which developed the SinaptiStim system tested in this trial. He also reported relationships with Epitech, Roche, Novo Nordisk, and PIAM Farmaceutici, and filed for patents about targeted non-invasive brain stimulation and combination drugs for neurodegenerative diseases. He has received funding from Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, European Commission Horizon 2020, Italian Ministry Of Health, Italian Ministry of Education, and Brightfocus Foundation.

    Cummings disclosed numerous relationships with pharmaceutical companies and others.

    Primary Source

    Clinical Trials on Alzheimer's Disease

    Source Reference: Koch G "Results of a 52-week phase II trial of repetitive TMS of the default mode network in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease" CTAD 2024.

    Thursday, October 17, 2024

    Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation alone or in combination with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in poststroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

     Instead of doing lazy crapola review research like this, WHY THE FUCK AREN'T YOU PROVIDING RESEARCH THAT GETS SURVIVORS RECOVERED? Are your mentors and senior researchers that fucking incompetent? 

    Send me hate mail on this: oc1dean@gmail.com. I'll print your complete statement with your name and my response in my blog. Or are you afraid to engage with my stroke-addled mind? I would like to know why you aren't creating research that gets survivors recovered!

    You'll want 100% recovery when you become the 1 in 4 per WHO that has a stroke!). I'd suggest you start working on that now!

    Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation alone or in combination with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in poststroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Abstract

    Objective

    This study aimed to comprehensively review the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) alone or in combination with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on improving upper limb motor functions and activities of daily living (ADL) in patients with stroke, and to explore possible efficacy-related modulators.

    Methods

    A literature search from 1st January 2004 to 1st June 2024 was performed to identified studies that investigated the effects of rPMS on upper limb motor functions and ADL in poststroke patients.

    Results

    Seventeen studies were included. Compared with the control, both rPMS alone or rPMS in combination with rTMS significantly improved upper limb motor function (rPMS: Hedge’s g = 0.703, p = 0.015; rPMS + rTMS: Hedge’s g = 0.892, p < 0.001) and ADL (rPMS: Hedge’s g = 0.923, p = 0.013; rPMS + rTMS: Hedge’s g = 0.923, p < 0.001). However, rPMS combined with rTMS was not superior to rTMS alone on improving poststroke upper limb motor function and ADL (Hedge’s g = 0.273, p = 0.123). Meta-regression revealed that the total pulses (p = 0.003) and the number of pulses per session of rPMS (p < 0.001) correlated with the effect sizes of ADL.

    Conclusions

    Using rPMS alone or in combination with rTMS appears to effectively improve upper extremity functional recovery and activity independence in patients after stroke. However, a simple combination of these two interventions may not produce additive benefits than the use of rTMS alone. Optimization of rPMS protocols, such as applying appropriate dosage, may lead to a more favourable recovery outcome in poststroke rehabilitation.

    Introduction

    Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a non-invasive therapeutic approach for facilitating motor recovery following neurological diseases, which was first proposed for the purpose of neurological rehabilitation in 1996 [1]. The rPMS technique employs focused magnetic pulses over various peripheral targets (e.g., muscles, nerves, or spinal roots) [2], and this technique induces repetitive contraction-relaxation cycles by depolarizing neurons [3] and then provides proprioceptive inputs to afferent fibers [4,5,6,7], therefore modulating sensorimotor plasticity. In the literature, rPMS is considered a unique, promising neuromodulation technique due to its advantage of providing more deeply penetrating, focused, painless stimulation than conventional electrical stimulation provides [5, 8, 9].

    In 2023, rPMS was delivered using a transcranial magnetic stimulator, which was originally used for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for relieving chronic pain [10]. In poststroke rehabilitation, rPMS is different from rTMS in the neural mechanism - rTMS has been extensively used to facilitate motor recovery by modulating cortical plasticity in a top-down approach [11] whereas rPMS is adopting a bottom-up approach through recruitment of proprioceptive afferents thus up-regulate the excitability of the sensorimotor areas via the ascending pathway [2, 6]. Therefore, combining central and peripheral magnetic stimulation may produce a synergistic effect on the facilitation of motor recovery after stroke [12].

    The effects of rPMS for motor function of the hemiplegic upper extremity or ADL after stroke have been reviewed in previous systematic reviews, which generally have reported positive effects of rPMS [2, 8, 13,14,15,16,17,18]. However, these reviews are not free from methodological limitations. Firstly, a few reviews did not perform meta-analysis to quantitively evaluate the treatment effects [2, 14, 18]. Secondly, in the previous meta-analytic reviews, no detailed subgroup analysis or meta-regression was performed to identify the influence of different stimulation protocols, patient demographics, or patients’ clinical profiles on the treatment effect sizes [8, 13, 15, 16]. Thirdly, some reviews covered a wide range of neurological disease conditions, so the specific effect of rPMS in stroke rehabilitation was still not conclusive [2, 17]. Lastly, these reviews did not systematically investigate the effect of rPMS alone or in combination with rTMS to elaborate the possible synergistic effect of the combined interventions [2, 8, 13,14,15,16,17,18].

    Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of clinical effectiveness as well as neural mechanisms underlying the therapeutic benefits of using rPMS alone or in combination with rTMS in poststroke rehabilitation is needed. Here, our review aimed to: (1) investigate the effects of these two interventional methods (using rPMS alone or in combination with rTMS) on upper limb motor function and ADL in poststroke patients, using meta-analysis; (2) identify any significant relationship between various rPMS parameters, patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and effect sizes using subgroup analyses and meta-regression; and (3) clarify the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of rPMS by qualitatively assessing rPMS studies using neuroimaging and/or neurophysiological outcomes.