Theory of mind in subjects with major depressive disorder: is it influenced by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess, in a sample of subjects with current major depressive disorder, whether high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) is able to influence affective "theory of mind" (ToM). METHODS: We conducted a pilot naturalistic trial in which 14 subjects with MDD were treated with daily HF-rTMS over their left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for 4 weeks. Objective depressive symptoms and affective ToM (as assessed, respectively, by the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test [RMET]) were measured pre-post HF-rTMS treatment. RESULTS: Our findings indicated the absence of a significant main effect for pre-post RMET scores, yet a significant interaction between pre-post RMET performance and change in depressive symptoms. Therefore, depressed subjects in our sample exhibited ToM improvements in proportion to their antidepressant response. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that HF-rTMS is able to influence ToM in subjects with MDD. We hypothesize that this effect could be associated, at least in part, with clinical improvement over time. However, further studies with larger samples and controlled designs are needed to better clarify our preliminary findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".