Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Corticomotor Plasticity Predicts Clinical Efficacy of Combined Neuromodulation and Cognitive Training in Alzheimer's Disease
Brem AK, Di Iorio R, Fried PJ, Oliveira-Maia AJ, Marra C, Profice P, Quaranta D, Schilberg L et al.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2020-07-08
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Objective To investigate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with cognitive training for treatment of cognitive symptoms in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). A secondary objective was to analyze associations between brain plasticity and cognitive effects of treatment. Methods In this randomized, sham-controlled, multicenter clinical trial, 34 patients with AD were assigned to three experimental groups receiving 30 daily sessions of combinatory intervention. Participants in the real/real group ( n = 16) received 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered separately to each of six cortical regions, interleaved with computerized cognitive training. Participants in the sham rTMS group ( n = 18) received sham rTMS combined with either real (sham/real group, n = 10) or sham (sham/sham group, n = 8) cognitive training. Effects of treatment on neuropsychological (primary outcome) and neurophysiological function were compared between the 3 treatment groups. These, as well as imaging measures of brain atrophy, were compared at baseline to 14 healthy controls (HC). Results At baseline, patients with AD had worse cognition, cerebral atrophy, and TMS measures of cortico-motor reactivity, excitability, and plasticity than HC. The real/real group showed significant cognitive improvement compared to the sham/sham, but not the real/sham group. TMS-induced plasticity at baseline was predictive of post-intervention changes in cognition, and was modified across treatment, in association with changes of cognition. Interpretation Combined rTMS and cognitive training may improve the cognitive status of AD patients, with TMS-induced cortical plasticity at baseline serving as predictor of therapeutic outcome for this intervention, and potential mechanism of action. Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01504958.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Brem, A. K., Di Iorio, R., Fried, P. J., Oliveira-Maia, A. J., Marra, C., Profice, P., et al. (2020). Corticomotor Plasticity Predicts Clinical Efficacy of Combined Neuromodulation and Cognitive Training in Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00200
Vancouver
Brem AK, Di Iorio R, Fried PJ, Oliveira-Maia AJ, Marra C, Profice P, et al. Corticomotor Plasticity Predicts Clinical Efficacy of Combined Neuromodulation and Cognitive Training in Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2020. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.00200. PMID: 32733232.
BibTeX
@article{brem2020-32733232,
author = {Brem, A. K. and Di Iorio, R. and Fried, P. J. and Oliveira-Maia, A. J. and Marra, C. and Profice, P. and Quaranta, D. and Schilberg, L. and others},
title = {{Corticomotor Plasticity Predicts Clinical Efficacy of Combined Neuromodulation and Cognitive Training in Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2020.00200},
pmid = {32733232},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2020.00200}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results At baseline, patients with AD had worse cognition, cerebral atrophy, and TMS measures of cortico-motor reactivity, excitability, and plasticity than HC.
- The real/real group showed significant cognitive improvement compared to the sham/sham, but not the real/sham group.
Study details
- Participants16
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 16 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32733232) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “exercise-training”
125 studies in the library carry the topic tag “exercise-training”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 125 tagged studies.