MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186559521 · doi:10.2147/ndt.s91126

Risk of seizures in transcranial magnetic stimulation: a clinical review to inform consent process focused on bupropion

2015· review· en· W2186559521 on OpenAlexaff
Fidel Vila‐Rodriguez, Christine E. Dobek, Daniel M. Blumberger, Jonathan Downar, Zafiris J. Daskalakis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBupropionMedicineTranscranial magnetic stimulationPsychiatrySertralineEpilepsyAntidepressantInternal medicineSmoking cessationStimulationAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: When considering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder, clinicians often face a lack of detailed information on potential interactions between rTMS and pharmacotherapy. This is particularly relevant to patients receiving bupropion, a commonly prescribed antidepressant with lower risk of sexual side effects or weight increase, which has been associated with increased risk of seizure in particular populations. Our aim was to systematically review the information on seizures occurred with rTMS to identify the potential risk factors with attention to concurrent medications, particularly bupropion. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review through the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE between 1980 and June 2015. Additional articles were found using reference lists of relevant articles. Reporting of data follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles reporting the occurrence of seizures during rTMS. Articles reporting seizures in epilepsy during rTMS were excluded. A total of 25 rTMS-induced seizures were included in the final review. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were systematically extracted, and the authors of the applicable studies were contacted when appropriate to provide more detail about the seizure incidents. RESULTS: Twenty-five seizures were identified. Potential risk factors emerged such as sleep deprivation, polypharmacy, and neurological insult. High-frequency-rTMS was involved in a percentage of the seizures. None of these seizures reported had patients taking bupropion in the literature review. One rTMS-induced seizure was reported from the Food and Drug Administration in a sleep-deprived patient who was concurrently taking bupropion, sertraline, and amphetamine. CONCLUSION: During the consent process, potential risk factors for an rTMS-induced seizure should be carefully screened for and discussed. Data do not support considering concurrent bupropion treatment as contraindication to undergo rTMS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychiatric Disease and TreatmentSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207