A framework for targeting alternative brain regions with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been argued that clinical depression is accompanied by reductions in cortical excitability of the left prefrontal cortex (PFC). In support of this, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which is a method of enhancing cortical excitability, has shown antidepressant efficacy when applied over the left PFC, although the overall therapeutic effects remain inconclusive. The cerebral pathophysiology of depression is, however, not limited to dysfunctions in the PFC, thus, targeting alternative brain regions with rTMS may provide new therapeutic windows in the treatment of depression. Evidence from electroencephalography and lesion studies suggests that not only is the left PFC involved in depression but also the parietal cortex and cerebellum. Furthermore, rTMS over the parietal cortex and the cerebellum has been found to improve mood and emotional functioning, at least in healthy volunteers. We have integrated these findings in an rTMS-oriented theoretical framework for the neurobiology of low mood and depression. To establish the possible therapeutic efficacy of this model, whereby, for example, the application of slow rTMS over the right parietal cortex and fast rTMS over the cerebellum may be beneficial in different subtypes of depression, clinical rTMS studies that target the parietal cortex and cerebellum are 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".