A Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Trial of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Refractory Auditory Hallucinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the temporoparietal cortex may have therapeutic benefits for patients with schizophrenia and treatment-resistant auditory hallucinations. We aimed to test this hypothesis in a randomized double-blind trial. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with treatment-resistant auditory hallucinations entered a randomized sham-controlled, double-blind trial. rTMS was applied for 10 consecutive weekdays, for 15 minutes at 1 Hz and 90% of the resting motor threshold. We assessed clinical symptoms and cognitive function. RESULTS: rTMS was safe with no adverse effects on memory and cognitive parameters assessed. Active treatment did not result in a greater therapeutic effect than sham on any measure except for the loudness of hallucinations where there was a significant reduction in the active versus the sham group over time. CONCLUSIONS: The study does not support the effectiveness of rTMS using the stimulation parameters provided. However, it does suggest that rTMS methods may have a therapeutic role and indicates the need for further exploration of alternative and more effective stimulation methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".