Evidence for Impaired Cortical Inhibition in Schizophrenia Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cortical inhibition (CI) deficits have been proposed as a pathophysiologic mechanism in schizophrenia. This study employed 3 transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms to assess CI in patients with schizophrenia. Paired-pulse TMS involves stimulating with a lower-intensity pulse a few milliseconds before a higher-intensity pulse, thereby inhibiting the size of the motor evoked potential produced by the higher-intensity pulse. In the cortical silent period paradigm, inhibition is reflected by the silent period duration (ie, the duration of electromyographic activity cessation following a TMS-induced motor evoked potential). Transcallosal inhibition involves stimulation of the contralateral motor cortex several milliseconds prior to stimulation of the ipsilateral motor cortex, inhibiting the size of the motor evoked potential produced by ipsilateral stimulation. METHODS: We measured CI using these 3 paradigms in 15 unmedicated patients with schizophrenia (14 medication-naive and 1 medication-free for longer than 1 year) (13 were in the transcallosal inhibition paradigm), 15 medicated patients with schizophrenia (11 taking olanzapine, 1 risperidone, 1 quetiapine, 1 methotrimeprazine + perphenazine, 1 quetiapine + loxapine), and 15 healthy controls. RESULTS: Unmedicated patients demonstrated significant CI deficits compared with healthy controls across all inhibitory paradigms whereas medicated patients did not (at all inhibitory intervals, paired-pulse TMS: controls = 59.9%, medicated = 44.3%, unmedicated = 28.7%; cortical silent period: controls = 55.0 milliseconds, medicated = 60.4 milliseconds, unmedicated = 39.7 milliseconds; transcallosal inhibition: controls = 33.6%, medicated = 23.7%, unmedicated = 10.4%; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that schizophrenia is associated with deficits in CI and that antipsychotic medications may increase CI.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".