Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for refractory symptoms in schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Schizophrenia is an illness associated with a substantial degree of treatment resistance and suboptimal therapeutic response. In recent years, novel brain stimulation technologies have been identified as potential treatments for schizophrenia and related disorders. Several published studies have assessed the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with schizophrenia. RECENT FINDINGS: Most published studies have focused on the use of low-frequency rTMS to treat refractory auditory hallucinations. These studies support the efficacy of stimulation over the temporoparietal cortex. Several other studies have assessed high-frequency stimulation of the prefrontal cortex in the treatment of negative symptoms. Novel protocols to treat auditory hallucinations have been piloted and case reports are emerging on the use of maintenance rTMS to treat auditory hallucinations. SUMMARY: Overall, rTMS studies have demonstrated some promise in the treatment of schizophrenia. However, more research is required to delineate the role of this technique in clinical practice and to explore novel stimulation techniques that may ultimately lead to improved therapeutic efficacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
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".