MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The application of transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatry and neurosciences research

2002· review· en· W1840814192 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Psychiatrica Scandinavica · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeurosciencePsychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryDeep transcranial magnetic stimulationMajor depressive disorderDiseaseBrain stimulationCognitionNeuroplasticityMedicineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Over recent years transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has become widely applied in the study of neuropsychiatric disorders. The aim of this article is to review the application of TMS as an investigative tool and as a potential therapeutic modality in psychiatric disorders. METHOD: A comprehensive literature review. RESULTS: When applied as an investigative tool, TMS provides innovative ways to directly study the excitability of the cortex, cortical regional connectivity, the plasticity of brain responses and cognitive functioning in illness and disease states. A number of studies suggest the potential of treatment with TMS in disease states, especially in patients with depression, although difficulties exist with the interpretation of the published literature. CONCLUSION: TMS has a considerable role in neuropsychiatric research. It appears to have considerable potential as a therapeutic tool in depression, and perhaps a role in several other disorders, although widespread application requires larger trials and establishment of sustained response.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.292 · 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