Estimulação transcraniana por corrente direta: uma alternativa promissora para o tratamento da depressão maior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In recent years, a number of new somatic (non-pharmacological treatments) have been developed for the treatment of major depression and other neuropsychiatric disorders. Among these, one of the most promising is transcranial direct current stimulation. METHOD: For the present literature review we searched the PubMed between January 1985 and February 2009. To be included, articles should have been published in English and should address general principles of transcranial direct current stimulation and its use in major depression. DISCUSSION: Current protocols for the treatment of major depression with transcranial direct current stimulation usually involve the application of two sponge-electrodes in the scalp. In general, the positive electrode is applied in the region above the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (i.e., F3 region of the 10/20 International System for EEG) and the negative electrode is applied in the region above the right supra-orbital area. A direct electrical current of 1-2 mA is then applied between the electrodes for about 20 minutes, with sessions being daily performed for one to two weeks. Initial studies (including a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial) showed that transcranial direct current stimulation is effective for the treatment of non-complicated major depression and that this technique, when used in depressed patients, is associated with improvement in cognitive performance (including working memory). Finally, transcranial direct current stimulation is safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Recent studies show that transcranial direct current stimulation is an important neuromodulatory method that may be useful for the treatment of depressed patients. However, further studies are needed to better clarify its precise role in the management of depressive 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".