High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Accelerates and Enhances the Clinical Response to Antidepressants in Major Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) is a safe and effective treatment for major depression. However, its utility as a strategy to accelerate and improve clinical response to antidepressants is still unclear. DATA SOURCES: We searched the literature from 1995 through May 2012 using EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and, from October 2008 until May 2012, by using MEDLINE. We included only studies written in the English language. STUDY SELECTION: We selected all randomized, double-blind, and sham-controlled trials on HF-rTMS used as an accelerating (add-on) strategy to antidepressants for major depression. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed a random effects meta-analysis using odds ratios (ORs) for response and remission rates following HF-rTMS and sham rTMS. Two time points were considered: the end of the add-on HF-rTMS stimulation period (T1) and the end of the study (T2). RESULTS: Data were obtained from 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), totaling 392 subjects with major depression. For T1 (at mean ± SD 2.67 ± 0.82 weeks following start of combined rTMS + antidepressant treatment), 6 studies reported on response and 4 on remission rates. We found significantly higher response rates for active HF-rTMS (43.3%; 84/194) compared to sham rTMS (26.8%; 53/198) (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.12-5.56; P = .025); however, remission rates did not differ between groups (P = .33). Heterogeneity between the included RCTs reporting data on response and remission rates at T1 was significant (response: Q5 = 11.4, P = .044, I2 = 56.12; remission: Q3 = 12.24, P = .007, I2 = 75.45). For study end (T2; at mean ± SD 6.80 ± 3.11 weeks following start of combined rTMS + antidepressant treatment), 5 studies reported on response and 4 on remission rates; overall, response rates at T2 were significantly higher for subjects receiving HF-rTMS in comparison to those receiving sham rTMS (62% [104/168] and 46% [79/172], respectively; OR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.003-3.56; P = .049). Also, 53.8% (57/106) and 38.64% (36/107) of subjects receiving active HF-rTMS and sham rTMS, respectively, were in remission at T2 (OR = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.27-4.61; P = .007). Heterogeneity between the included RCTs reporting data on remission rates at T2 was not significant, although RCTs reporting on response rates at T2 were heterogeneous. The baseline depression scores for active and sham rTMS groups were similar. Finally, HF-rTMS was comparable to sham rTMS in terms of dropout rates. CONCLUSIONS: HF-rTMS is a promising strategy for accelerating clinical response to antidepressants in major depression, providing clinically meaningful benefits that are comparable to those of other agents such as triiodothyronine and pindolol. Furthermore, HF-rTMS seems to be an acceptable treatment for depressed subjects.
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".