Vagus Nerve Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant\nDepression: A Randomized, Controlled Acute\nPhase Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) alters both concentrations of neurotransmitters or their metabolites and functional activity of central nervous system regions dysregulated in mood disorders. An open trial has suggested efficacy.\nMethods: This 10-week, acute, randomized, controlled, masked trial compared adjunctive VNS with sham treatment in 235 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (n = 210) or nonpsychotic, depressed phase, bipolar disorder (n = 25). In the current episode, participants had not responded adequately to between two and six research-qualified medication trials. A two-week, single-blind recovery period (no stimulation) and then 10 weeks of masked active or sham VNS followed implantation. Medications were kept stable. Primary efficacy outcome among 222 evaluable participants was based on response rates (≥ 50% reduction from baseline on the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD24]).\nResults: At 10-weeks, HRSD24 response rates were 15.2% for the active (n = 112) and 10.0% for the sham (n = 110) groups (p = .251, last observation carried forward [LOCF]). Response rates with a secondary outcome, the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology – Self-Report (IDS-SR30), were 17.0% (active) and 7.3% (sham) (p = .032, LOCF). VNS was well tolerated; 1% (3/235) left the study because of adverse events.\nConclusions: This study did not yield definitive evidence of short-term efficacy for adjunctive VNS in treatment-resistant depression.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".