rTMS of the Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex for Major Depression: Safety, Tolerability, Effectiveness, and Outcome Predictors for 10 Hz Versus Intermittent Theta-burst Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional rTMS protocols for major depression commonly employ stimulation sessions lasting >30 min. However, recent studies have sought to improve costs, capacities, and outcomes by employing briefer protocols such as theta burst stimulation (iTBS). OBJECTIVE: To compare safety, effectiveness, and outcome predictors for DMPFC-rTMS with 10 Hz (30 min) versus iTBS (6 min) protocols, in a large, naturalistic, retrospective case series. METHODS: A chart review identified 185 patients with a medication-resistant major depressive episode who underwent 20-30 sessions of DMPFC-rTMS (10 Hz, n = 98; iTBS, n = 87) at a single Canadian clinic from 2011 to 2014. RESULTS: Clinical characteristics of 10 Hz and iTBS patients did not differ prior to treatment, aside from significantly higher age in iTBS patients. A total 7912 runs of DMPFC-rTMS (10 Hz, 4274; iTBS, 3638) were administered, without any seizures or other serious adverse events, and no significant differences in rates of premature discontinuation between groups. Dichotomous outcomes did not differ significantly between groups (Response/remission rates: Beck Depression Inventory-II: 10 Hz, 40.6%/29.2%; iTBS, 43.0%/31.0%. 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: 10 Hz, 50.6%/38.5%; iTBS, 48.5%/27.9%). On continuous outcomes, there was no significant difference between groups in pre-treatment or post-treatment scores, or percent improvement on either measure. Mixed-effects modeling revealed no significant group-by-time interaction on either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Both 10 Hz and iTBS DMPFC-rTMS appear safe and tolerable at 120% resting motor threshold. The effectiveness of 6 min iTBS and 30 min 10 Hz protocols appears comparable. Randomized trials comparing 10 Hz to iTBS may be warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".