The effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is currently emerging as one of the first fundamentally new treatments in psychiatric practice for a considerable number of years. Research into the use of rTMS for the treatment of patients with depression has now been conducted for over 15 years. The aim of this article was to review the development of rTMS treatment for depression and the current state of evidence supporting its use. The vast majority of the trials conducted on the technique have evaluated the efficacy of high-frequency rTMS applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex using a set of parameters very similar to those originally described in the mid-1990s. This 'standard' form of rTMS clearly appears to have antidepressant efficacy, and its effects have now been confirmed in several large-scale clinical trials and a number of meta-analyses: response is better than that of sham stimulation, although the number of responders to treatment is relatively modest. A wide range of alternative forms of rTMS have been, or are currently being, evaluated. Low-frequency stimulation applied to the right prefrontal cortex appears to have similar efficacy to standard treatment and it is possible that the bilateral approaches may prove more effective. Novel methods of stimulation, such as priming stimulation, theta-burst stimulation and deep TMS, appear to be promising although require further evaluation. Significant benefit appears likely to accumulate through the use of methods that involve a more reliable targeting of prefrontal brain regions. Research is also required to evaluate the long-term effects of rTMS treatment, its use as a maintenance therapy and to establish reliable predictors of response to treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".