Acute effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on attentional control are related to antidepressant outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is a new treatment procedure that holds promise of more insight into the pathophysiology of depression because the DLPFC may play an important role in the interplay between emotional and attentional information processing. We sought to investigate whether acute neurocognitive effects of rTMS are related to antidepressant outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2005 and May 2007, we examined the effects of a single session compared with 2 weeks of rTMS over the left DLPFC on cognition and mood in therapy-resistant patients with depression. We used a crossover placebo-controlled double-blind design and differentiated rTMS treatment responders and nonresponders. We used a task-switching paradigm to measure cognitive function. RESULTS: After 2 weeks of high-frequency rTMS over the left DLPFC, depressive symptoms improved in more than half (53%) of our therapy-resistant population. After a single session, mood did not improve but attentional control was increased solely within our group of treatment responders. LIMITATIONS: Our results should be interpreted as preliminary because our sample was small and because the cognitive task we used has not been tested for validity and reliability. In addition, despite minimal stimulation of the DLPFC during sham stimulation, it is possible that the stimulation was partially active. Finally, benzodiazepines may have had impairing effects on the attentional task. CONCLUSION: Cognitive reactivity after a single session of rTMS may hold promise as a predictor of beneficial treatment outcomes. Moreover, within the group of responders, attentional control appears to play an important role in the progress of mood disorders.
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".